Tuesday, 15 April 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Bill of Rights Legislation 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 Bill because: We get no legally enforceable rights under the Bill The Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property and not be deprived of it without just compensation and the right of choice between Government and non-Government schools. The Bill gives Canberra extra powers to change our Federal system by the back door without a constitutional referendum. The Bill gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 810 citizens) and Robertson (from 41 citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the proposed Bill of Rights because it adversely affects areas of the liberty and freedom of Australians. It will operate against: The States and our Federal system of Government Criminal Justice The Police Education Families Employer/Employee relations It will remove the power of the people through Parliament, by giving power to a new more powerful Human Rights Commission which is not elected, but can act as a Star Chamber. We do most earnestly wish to keep our system of Common Law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the so-called ``Australian Bill of Rights'' which is now before the Senate, is an inherently dangerous piece of legislation. Furthermore, it takes away many of the basic and important rights Australians now have. It is a blatant attempt to engineer social change according to a given ideology without the people having any say in the matter. It should be settled by a Referendum. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled reject the Australian Bill of Rights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 86 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That certain Trade Unions are currently forcing employers and employees to join union-controlled Superannuation schemes through industrial blackmail, thereby extending the Unions' economic power and at the same time infringing individual rights. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: (i) Guarantee that Occupational Superannuation is a matter of individual choice. (ii) Declare illegal industrial standover tactics which force people to join superannuation schemes controlled by, or sponsored by, trade unions. (iii) Protect those companies and their employees who establish their own superannuation arrangements at the enterprise level. (iv) Ensure that union or industry-based schemes are not disguised pay rises by providing that employees must also make contributions. (v) Provide that control of the funds of such schemes is vested in the elected representative of the contributors to those schemes. (vi) Oppose any backdoor attempts at achieving compulsory unionism. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Messner (from 373 citizens) and Robertson (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government- 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the capital gains tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the capital gains tax is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the government introduce the capital gains tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition in opposing it. by Senator Messner (from 132 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a ``first strike'' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Zakharov (from 36 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 distributers and retailers who they supply, thus acting in a position of unfair competition, and leading to the large companies exerting unconscionable pressure on those independent distributors and retailers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully brings to your attention: that there are individuals who have a conscientious objection to war because of their religious or general moral principles and that the Parliament of this country has already recognised the right of such individuals not to have to participate in military service in time of war and that all Australian taxpayers are required to contribute to military expenditure, regardless of their beliefs, through that part of their tax that is used for the Defence budget and that while we acknowledge the right of the Government to levy taxes and to decide on the expenditure of monies so collected we cannot accept that those with a conscientious objection to war should be forced to contribute to military expenditure Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will acknowledge the right of those who have a conscientious objection to war to withhold their taxes from military allocations and enable the military related proportion of their taxes to be used for peaceful purposes only and, as we note that taxes are collected or disbursed for specific purposes (such as for Medicare), that the Commissioner of Taxation be directed that the military-related proportion of taxes collected from conscientious objectors to war be set aside in a separate fund, the Peace Tax Fund, to be used only for peaceful purposes, such purposes to be determined by the Government. by Senator Sanders (from 260 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that your Petitioners: Request that the Hawke Government: Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March, 1986; Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners most humbly pray: That the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing Policy. by Senator Kilgariff (from 14 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Commerce and Technology) —by leave-The Australian Government was advised by the United States Administration early this morning of immediately impending military action against Libya. President Reagan has since confirmed that the United States has taken military action against targets which it regards as supporting terrorism. The Australian Government has counselled restraint by both the United States and Libya in the course of the developing tensions between them. It deeply regrets that this conflict has taken place and urges both sides to suspend hostilities and engage in genuine efforts to bring about the peaceful resolution of their differences. This will mean that the United States terminate its military engagements against Libya. It also means that as an absolute essential Colonel Gaddafi terminate his Government's indiscriminate export of terrorist activity against civilians and civilian targets, especially United States civilians. The United States has said that its action was motivated not only by evidence of Libyan involvement in and direction of past terrorist activities but also by indications of Libyan planning being well advanced for further operations against American citizens in a number of countries. The United States' military action was explained to us, not in terms of revenge or reprisals, but in terms of demonstrating that terrorism will incur a significant cost. The Government accepts that there is a substantial body of evidence of Libyan involvement in and direction of international terrorism. The Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have been privy to apparently compelling evidence of a direct line of command between Libya and the Berlin nightclub bombing. It is a matter of serious concern that following the Gulf of Sidra episode-where Libya attacked American forces exercising in international waters and the United States retaliated-Libya's policy of extreme hostility against the United States has continued. The Government, in response to a request from President Reagan in January, took a number of economic measures against Libya and reduced Libya's official representation in Australia as part of collective international measures to demonstrate to Libya that its behaviour in support of international terrorism is totally unacceptable to the international community. The Government has expressed a desire to work with Western and other Governments for a concerted approach to dealing with international terrorism. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is pursuing this matter with Western and other Governments and will be reporting back to Cabinet on measures to promote a sustained long-term effort to defeat the threat of international terrorism. The Government is profoundly concerned that the situation has reached the point where Libyan actions have driven the United States to regard it as essential that it take military action. Australia works persistently for a peaceful world. We are opposed to the use of violent means to resolve differences between nations and in particular to the resort of terrorism. Terrorism recognises no rules and respects no moral standards. The victims are almost always innocent victims. Australians have already been victims of this sort of activity, and that is another reason why we are implacably opposed to this sort of behaviour. Let me sum up the Government's position. We wish to see restraint and an early end to hostilities. We hope that the conflict will not widen and escalate. We are fully conscious of the intractable and bitter conflicts of the Middle East, and the need for them to be resolved if the Middle East is to cease to be a source of violence and terrorism, not only in that region but throughout the world. We look for such a resolution. But an essential requirement for ending the fundamental confrontation between Libya and the United States must be that Libya completely and convincingly disavows recourse to terrorism. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I thank the Government for bringing this statement, which is being made in the House of Representatives, concurrently into the Senate. I do not wish to debate it at this stage. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-The Australian Democrats gave as much consideration as we could this morning to the news, delivered at about a quarter past ten on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio, that the United States Government had authorised an attack on certain targets in Libya. I must say that we are far from persuaded as to the wisdom of the action by the United States at this stage, after conceding that we condemn in total terms the proven acts of terrorism by Libya which have been documented over the years. It was indicated in the statement from President Reagan and repeated in the statement read to the Senate by Senator Button that the United States of America has taken action against targets which it regards as supporting terrorism. That statement is unique in its vagueness. All of us who know cities such as Tripoli, Benghazi and Jakarta, or whatever, know that surrounding those kinds of cities in the developing countries are enormous collections of human beings who form themselves into societies such as shanty towns and it is virtually impossible, with the sophistication of present day weapons, to hit a so-called `military target' without killing or wounding thousands of innocent human beings, including children. If this is the case in this instance-we do not know-it worries the Australian Democrats and it worries me that six hours after the so-called attack we are still so short on the following facts: Which targets were hit? By whom? With what? With what methodology? Were the aircraft based in the United Kingdom? Were they refuelled in mid-air? Was the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation informed? Were all nations of NATO informed? Did the United States live up to its obligations of informing its allies in NATO of this attack, because this sort of attack immediately puts into the perspective of the nation attacked, namely Libya, those kinds of nations as targets? Was Greece informed? Were the Turks informed? Was West Germany informed? To what extent were other allies of the United States informed, such as Australia? With an almost self-declared maniac like Gaddafi, who is the leader of the nation that has been attacked, it would not be beyond his mental insanity to attack any friend of the United States. We are a self-confessed friend of the United States. I would have thought that, as much as we deplore and abhor the kinds of mongrel activities of Gaddafi and his colleagues, we, as members of the Australian Parliament, have a fundamental obligation to care about the safety and protection of the Australian people. I am not persuaded that Gaddafi does not have access to nuclear weapons from Pakistan. I would think that that would be likely. I would be worried because all authoritative sources indicate that Australia is a nuclear target of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and there is a closeness-I put it no more than that-between Libya and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has made noises about not allowing a situation such as a United States siege or attack on Libya to continue. I would believe-I put it no higher than that-that the safety of Australians could be involved in some way or other in this attack of the United States Government on Libya and on installations in Libya. What are Libya's options, given that it is led by a dictator who is a madman-the mad dog of the Middle East, as aptly and accurately described by President Reagan? We have the United States, which has a population of over 230 million people and has the most sophisticated armoury in the world, attacking, in a military sense, a nation of something like three million people. What are the options open to a nation such as that? What are the options open to an insane mind like Gaddafi's? He will simply strike out not by attacking a giant-a Goliath-like the United States, but in the sneaky, mongrel-like way which he has done in the past. Whatever the merits or the demerits of a nation attacking another nation, I would have thought that this kind of attack makes it virtually incumbent upon the nation that has been attacked to strike back in the only way it knows possible-that is, not by military means. One wonders, with the sophistication and the advice that President Reagan and his advisers have, whether this retaliation-this lesson that had to be taught to Libya-might have been better done in a similar way, that is, by the American intelligence organisations, or whatever, rather than on a nation to nation basis. Senator Peter Baume —Do you mean use terror back? Senator CHIPP —I put it no higher than that because of the seriousness of the situation. It has been documented and it has been admitted that an attack by a nation was authorised by its Chief Executive, President Reagan, on another nation. If I might answer Senator Baume's interjection, with your indulgence, Mr President, Israel has shown with magnificent sophistication the way to handle that sort of problem. It has not necessarily always been handled on a nation to nation basis. I cite its action at Entebbe as one of the most brilliant acts by which it accomplished an end without involving the whole world in that situation. In any event, because the Democrats believe that Australia is a nuclear target in the global war struggle and because of the closeness that Libya has with the Soviet Union, without trying to overdramatise the situation, we have the view that it might not be the wisest course for the Prime Minister of this country to adopt to leave Australia at 3 o'clock this afternoon and to be out of the country at a time of such international crisis. More than that, there is the question that within 24 hours the Prime Minister of Australia, whether he likes it or not, will be publicly identified globally with the President of the United States in this situation. We wonder about the wisdom of that. We know, from conversations we had with Cabinet Ministers at the time of the MX missile crisis, of the difficulty the Cabinet faces in discussing matters of such international and national importance while the Prime Minister is out of the country. If the situation deteriorates in the next 24 to 48 hours, without over-dramatising the situation, we suggest again that the best place for the Prime Minister of this country might well be in Australia and not 14,000 or 15,000 miles away. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —by leave-There can be no justification for the military action taken by the United States of America against Libya. Equally, there can be no justification for acts of terrorism which emanate from Libya. But to try to demonstrate by a show of force that the world will not put up with terrorism through the use of terrorism on a massive scale is counter-productive, to put it mildly. The American action was a stupid act which will only cause more violence. One cannot hope to solve the terrorist problems in the world through the use of counter-terrorist activities. The world is facing a very destabilising situation. I agree with Senator Chipp that it is a great shame that the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will be leaving Australia this afternoon to visit the United States of America on a day which I believe is a very sad day in the world's history. Despite Government protestations, his actions will be seen as support for the actions of the United States. No matter what is said by the Government, the very fact that the Prime Minister is going to the United States and will be seen with the President of the United States will be tantamount to Australian support for American action. I think it is a great shame that he is going there. I think he should delay his departure until we see whether this situation will escalate, as it well might, which would be a great tragedy for us all. I will ask something a little unusual, Mr Presi- dent, in that I have drafted letters to both the Acting United States Ambassador, Mr Teare, and the Secretary of the Libyan People's Bureau in Canberra which I hope that senators from all sides of the chamber and members of the House of Representatives will sign, in order to express our concern and to ask that such acts of violence and intimidation in the Mediterranean cease. If the Senate wishes, I could read the wording of one of the letters-they are very similar-to be sent to the Libyan People's Bureau and to the United States Embassy. It is my hope that many senators in this chamber will consider that such an evenhanded approach is worthy of the adding of their signatures. We must take action as individuals as well as a nation in the face of such counterproductive and violent acts. We cannot solve terrorism by the use of terrorism. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I give notice that, contingent on Message No. 292 from the House of Representatives relating to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 being considered by the Senate, I shall move: That the Senate, having considered Message No. 292 from the House of Representatives, suspends so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent the requests for amendments and the amendments previously made by the Senate in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 being rescinded, and as would prevent the Bill being recommitted to the Committee of the Whole; and that such requests for amendments and amendments be hereby rescinded and that the Bill be recommitted forthwith. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes with concern that the inquiry into the introduction of a gold tax is not intending to hold hearings in the Northern Territory, in spite of the importance of gold mining to the Northern Territory, to Australian gold production and the number of people who may be affected by the recommendations of the inquiry. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I remind the Minister of previous answers in which he admitted that, apart from general estimates at the time of the original tax White Paper, no specific information was available to the Government about the likely impact on the vehicle industry of the fringe benefits tax at the time that the decision was actually made to impose the tax last year. In the course of Cabinet's consideration of the submissions from the industry and from himself to modify the tax, were estimates from either his Department or the Treasury placed before it? If they were, and in light of the release of the industry survey, will the Minister make public the Government's own projections about loss of sales and jobs flowing from the tax? If such projections are still not available and the decision to maintain the tax was made simply on the basis of the need for revenue, will the Minister say whether he agrees with the prediction of the industry that 10,000 jobs will be lost? Senator BUTTON —I do not think it was ever said that there was a dearth of information-if it is correctly described as information-floating about in regard to the likely effects of the fringe benefits tax in respect of motor vehicles. What I have said right from the beginning is that the information is of a somewhat speculative character. There are a number of things which are difficult to identify, such as what the precise effects will be, because they depend so much on decisions of individual fleet managers and individual motorists. They depend considerably on what are described as behavioural effects and a whole range of things of that kind. In my view there has never been a great degree of certainty about the projections put forward by any side about the consequences of the tax. Added to that there are a wide range of other factors which impact on the motor vehicle industry or are likely to do so in 1986. Senator Chaney mentioned some of these in the urgency motion the other day. They include unleaded petrol, the decision relating to sales tax and no doubt a response by dealers and purchasers to bring forward demand into 1986 in order to avoid these effects. All those sorts of things are common knowledge. I am asked whether the Government will publish estimates which were given to us by my Department earlier in the year. I wish to consider that question. I think I probably will be able to do that but I am not sure that this is the appropriate time to intrude those figures into the discussion which is still taking place. I think I would be prepared to do that in the longer term. I will take that part of the question on notice for a day or two. Senator Chaney —I asked whether you agree with the industry projections. Senator BUTTON —I am sorry; Senator Chaney had a silent supplementary question. He asked me whether I agreed with the industry projections. I have qualifications about those projections. I would not say they were wildly astray but I certainly have qualifications about them. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does the Australian Government believe that the Indonesian reaction to the article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 April-in my opinion a real beat-up-will have a damaging effect on aspects of the bilateral relationship? What is the Government's attitude towards Indonesia's actions against Australian journalists as reported in today's media, including Indonesia's decision not to grant visas to Australian journalists to visit Indonesia? Senator GARETH EVANS —It has already been made clear that the Government is disappointed that the visit by Dr Habibie has been suspended because of the article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 April. In response to Indonesian representations on this issue, in both Canberra and in Jakarta, the Government has reiterated to the Indonesian Government, as I indicated yesterday, that in Australia's pluralistic democratic society the news media have an important role to fulfil with complete independence and that the views expressed by the news media are not necessarily those of the Government. The Government has also urged that a clear distinction be made between the views expressed by the news media and the actions of the Government. We have expressed to Indonesia the hope that government-to-government co-operation, including important bilateral discussions, should proceed unimpaired. As to the question of journalists visiting Bali for President Reagan's visit, our Ambassador in Jakarta has been informed by the Indonesian Department of Foreign Affairs that no Australian journalist will be permitted to cover President Reagan's visit to Bali at the end of April. It has also been foreshadowed that there could be considerable difficulties for Australian journalists gaining access to Indonesia in future. The Government regards access by journalists and the free flow of information as an important element in its relations with Indonesia and other countries. That scarcely needs to be added. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the intense speculation that an attack by the United States on Libya was imminent, I ask whether the Minister considers that the Government failed in its responsibility to Australians travelling in the area when he said-and I quote from yesterday's Hansard: It is not considered appropriate to issue a travel warning at this time . . . albiet with the comfort that- . . . the Department of Foreign Affairs is closely monitoring the situation. What effort was made by the Australian Government to safeguard the lives of Australians in Libya, particularly in view of reports that expatriate employees there were being obliged by Gaddafi to move into military camps? Senator GARETH EVANS —There are a number of sensitive diplomatic considerations, as well as practical ones, governing the issuing of warnings of that kind. The position adopted by the Department of Foreign Affairs, on which I was briefed yesterday and on the basis of which I gave my answer, was no doubt a position reached with good reason. I will seek further information-- Senator Hill —That is not much comfort for the Australians in the region, is it? Senator GARETH EVANS —Let us reserve judgment on that. I will seek information from the Minister to see what can be provided. Senator McKIERNAN —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs been drawn to an article headed `Exiles slate action by migration authority' in last Sunday's edition of the Perth newspaper, the Independent, in which a Mr Laurence Etheredge, a spokesman for a communal family of illegal immigrants, claims that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is discriminating against the family? Is there any truth in the allegation? Can the Minister detail the circumstances leading to the arrival of the family in Albany, Western Australia? Had any members of the family made application for entry into Australia prior to their arrival? Have any members of the family been asked to leave Australia, and, if so, by what date are they to leave? Finally, have any personal belongings of family members been seized by Customs or other authorities, and, if so, will those possessions be returned to the family prior to their leaving this country? Senator GRIMES —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has given me the following information on the matters raised by Senator McKiernan. The Orionia and its complement of 13 arrived at Christmas Island on 1 December last, apparently from Israel via Indonesia. There is no information that any member made any prior application for a visa to visit Australia. The group had no documentation for entry, but all were granted two months temporary entry permits to allow time to consider another stay-except for the Captain, who is exempt from that requirement under the Migration Act. The vessel appeared at Albany on 22 January, where it was seized by the Australian Federal Police under the provisions of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966, acting on advice from Interpol that the vessel had been stolen in Israel. The Captain, Dr Hempel, and the sailing master, Mr Etheredge, were apprehended to face extradition charges and were subsequently released on surety. The property of the vessel was seized and held by Customs pending legal proceedings to determine their ownership. Applications for further temporary entry permits were made on 31 January 1986 and were refused on 14 March on the basis that the group were not bona fide visitors. The parties were directed to depart from Australia within 14 days. As Senator McKiernan said, the group subsequently applied for refugee status, despite the fact that earlier advice had been that they did not want to stay permanently. The claims were found to be manifestly unfounded in terms of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the related protocol. The extradition hearings against Dr Hempel and Mr Etheredge are scheduled for 8 and 9 May. No date has been set for the hearing of the property case. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is considering whether all members of the group need to remain in Australia pending the hearings. There has been no discrimination against the crew, who have been dealt with in the normal way, given the particular circumstances of their arrival in Australia. Senator CHIPP —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What is the rationale behind the Department of Foreign Affairs inviting as guests of the Government representatives of governments with vile human rights records? Mr Hector Jayewardene, the brother of the President of Sri Lanka, is presently in Australia as a guest of the Australian taxpayer. Has the Government discussed with him the atrocities of the Sri Lankan Government towards Tamils, which have been documented by Amnesty International, International Alert and the International Commission of Jurists? Why would such a person be a guest of the Australian taxpayer? I refer to a report in the Age of last Saturday that the Indonesian appointed Governor of East Timor, Mr Carrascalao, who could hardly claim a good human rights record, will soon be visiting Australia as a guest. Is it appropriate for the Government to be seen aligning itself with these governments, given their human rights records, while denying to intervene in respect of those countries which have obvious violations of human rights, as does the Government of Sri Lanka? Senator GARETH EVANS —Dr Jayewardene and Mr Carrascalao have been invited to Australia as part of the Department of Foreign Affairs regular program of visits by senior persons from other countries of interest to Australia. Under this program persons are invited in their own right and not necessarily in any official capacity. One of the purposes of the special overseas visitors program is to provide an opportunity for exposure to Australian perspectives on matters of common interest and concern. Australian concerns about human rights issues in Sri Lanka and East Timor have been placed clearly on the record and are well known to Sri Lankan and Indonesian authorities. Dr Jayewardene has played a prominent role in the Sri Lankan Government's handling of the communal problem. He has led the government delegation to negotiations on the communal question and led the Sri Lankan delegation to the recently concluded session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva. His visit to Australia has, therefore, provided a valuable opportunity to Australia once again to register its concerns about the communal situation and to urge the Sri Lankan Government to pursue a policy of moderation in the handling of the problem. This opportunity has been taken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his Department in their discussions with Dr Jayewardene. Mr Carrascalao is a civilian Timorese who has been Governor of East Timor since September 1982. During his time as Governor the general situation in the province has improved and economic development has proceeded. The understanding of the Australian Government is that the human rights situation in the province continues to improve. The Australian Government's primary concern has been and remains to do all it can to help the people of East Timor. Since 1975 we have made contributions of around $90m to projects in the province conducted by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations Children's Fund and Governor Carrascalao has been helpful in relation to these projects since becoming Governor. Whilst here he will have discussions with the Government on the situation in East Timor. Senator McINTOSH —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to the rapid escalation of expenditure on Commonwealth employees compensation? What is the Government doing to address this situation? Further, are there any other similar examples of rapidly rising Government payments, and what action is the Government taking to address these matters? Senator WALSH —My attention has been drawn to recent publicity about the cost of the Commonwealth compensation scheme. It ought to be noted, however, that escalation in the cost of compensation schemes is not confined to the public sector, let alone to the Commonwealth scheme. There is at least one other area where quite alarming cost escalations have taken place in recent years, and that is in the invalidity benefits-retirement sub-section of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, a matter about which I hope to be making a statement in the Senate before the end of the week. There is no doubt that a major cause of the escalation in both cases I have mentioned is the propensity of courts and tribunals to overturn long standing applications of the law, thereby causing large increases in outlays, an outcome for which, of course, the courts have no commensurate responsibility. In one particular area alone such actions by courts have increased expenditures by about $400m a year. An administrator of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme or a Commonwealth Government compensation commissioner, after a history of losing in appeal tribunals or court cases that should never have been lost, naturally adopts a more permissive application of the law. Indeed, the point has been reached where in the compensation areas something less than 2 per cent of the claims which are submitted are disallowed. That has a double-barrel effect and encourages more people to apply. It increases to almost 100 per cent the success rate of those who do apply. As I said before, a good deal of that arises from the fact that in Australia we have courts and tribunals which have and use de facto power over outlays but have no commensurate responsibility-indeed they have no responsibility at all. They have, moreover, an alarming record of capricious and ill-informed judgments. On the question of what to do about that, I would like to establish a precedent under which such decisions were promptly overturned in the Parliament. For that reason the Government has introduced a Bill in the House of Representatives following the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on the Bewley case. That concerned the issue by the Commissioner of benefit classification certificates, which were issued if there was a pre-existing medical condition, and the effect of which was that, if premature retirement on invalidity grounds was later caused because of that pre-existing medical condition or defect, a lower rate of invalid pension may be paid; but only-I stress only-if retirement was caused by that identified and noted pre-existing medical condition. Up until the AAT decision of last year, a section of the regulation had always been interpreted to mean that, if there were any chance of the identified pre-existing medical defect causing a premature retirement, then a BCC would be issued. But with the intrusion of the AAT into this matter, the AAT ruled that there had to be a better than 50/50 chance that a person would be invalided by that identified medical condition. In other words, the AAT effectively ruled that benefit classification certificates were a thing of the past. The cost in present values of the additional pension that would have to be paid as a result of that decision to those who retired in 1984-85 alone amounts to about $35m. So it is not an insignificant amount of money. The Government has introduced that legislation to overturn the decision of the AAT and establish the precedent that I would like to see established, that is, when capricious and ill-informed decisions which have large expenditure consequences are made by courts and tribunals, they are promptly overturned in the Parliament, just as the High Court of Australia should have been overturned in its taxation decisions throughout the 1970s. For that measure which the Government has taken, the Opposition is threatening to vote against that legislation and thereby perpetuate the rort about which they profess to be concerned. It has revealed the Waste Watch stunt for the exercise in humbug and hypocrisy that it is. Senator TOWNLEY —Does the Minister for Finance concede that since June 1980 the total external Commonwealth public sector debt has increased from just over $7,000m to over $28,400m at the end of June 1985? In other words, the Commonwealth overseas public sector debt is now four times what it was in 1980, and that is without what we have accumulated during this present financial year. Does the Minister agree that unless drastic reductions in Commonwealth spending are made to reduce the borrowings to cover the deficit in the coming financial year, the dollar will continue to weaken and the present high interest rates, with all the terrible side effects, will remain or even get worse for a considerable time to come? Senator WALSH —I did not get down precisely all the figures that were cited, but I did get down enough to know that they are not correct, at least not correct if meaningly defined. I am not sure what it was in December 1980-or whatever it was-but Senator Townley said a figure of about $7 billion. He said the Commonwealth external debt was about $28 billion to date. The gross Commonwealth debt is of that order. Of course, the net Commonwealth debt, which is the one that matters, is about half that. I will get precise figures for Senator Townley. If he needs a tutorial on how to understand or interpret those figures I will arrange for a member of my staff to give him such a tutorial. Senator TOWNLEY —I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister realise that the figures I cited were taken from a Treasury document? Senator WALSH —As I indicated in my answer, that does not mean that Senator Townley understands them or that he is able to interpret them properly. I repeat my offer of a tutorial on the subject from a member of my staff. Senator ELSTOB —The Minister representing the Minister for Transport will be aware of reports that the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee claims to have exposed a scandal of workers compensation to Commonwealth employees caused by poor attention to safety or employee rip-offs. It was alleged that one of the main culprits was the Australian National Railways Commission. I ask: Is there any substance to these allegations, especially in the light of experience from railway operators in other States? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware of the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee and its various claims from time to time. I am aware of its latest claim, which supposedly is an exposure of some scandal alleged to have taken place in workers compensation payments to Commonwealth Government employees caused by poor attention to safety and employee rip-offs. As far as the Australian National Railways Commission is concerned, the Minister has been advised that the figures cited are correct. However, I would not want the Senate to draw from that the conclusion that the statements made by the Waste Watch Committee have any foundation. They do not indicate that any employees are engaged in any so-called workers compensation rorts or that the Australian National is not committed to improving safety for employees and for the public generally. All that the figures indicate is that by the nature of their occupation Australian National employees, who are mainly engaged in duties on the track in very dusty conditions, handling trains in shunting areas or using heavy machinery in engineering workshops, obviously are more at risk from injury than are, say, clerks or tellers in other government instrumentalities, such as the Commonwealth Bank. These conditions cause a high incidence of minor eye injuries and loss of hearing claims common to anybody who works in such industrial environments. Australian National has a better workers compensation track record than most other public instrumentalities which offer a better comparison than the clerical work force of Commonwealth departments and authorities. Therefore, in response to the question asked of me by Senator Elstob, the Government says, and the evidence is there to prove it, that the claim that the Australian National and its employees are abusing the workers compensation system is without substance. I call on the Opposition committee to provide evidence of such abuse because, in the opinion of the Government, such a claim is completely irresponsible. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I note from the statement of the Leader of the Government this afternoon that it is the Australian Government's position to continue its `implacable opposition to terrorism' and that it is the Government's view that Libya, of all nations, has the obnoxious distinction of being the most zealous and unashamed exponent of state sponsored terrorism. I ask: Firstly, what steps, diplomatic or otherwise, has the Australian Government taken to strengthen international pressures to restrain Libyan based terrorism; and, secondly, what arrangements have been made between Australia and the United States for satisfactory consultations between our governments in the developments arising from today's events? Senator GARETH EVANS —I refer Senator Teague to that part of the statement made today by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate which states: The Government has expressed a desire to work with Western and other governments for a concerted approach to dealing with international terrorism. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is pursuing this matter with Western and other governments and will be reporting back to Cabinet on measures to promote a sustained long-term effort to defeat the threat of international terrorism. I add to that that no doubt this will be a subject which the Prime Minister will be wanting to pursue, and which he will be in a position to pursue, during his trip to the United States commencing today. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has the Minister seen the announcement that Australia plans to have a measles free Bicentenary? Will the Minister tell us the details of that proposal? Does the proposal allow for continuing surveillance and immunisation programs, so as to ensure that measles does not have an opportunity to re-establish in the population, as it has over the last few years? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have seen details of the proposal of the Minister for Health that we should have a measles free Australia by the Bicentenary in 1988. I think that Senator Crowley would agree that this is a terribly important matter. There has been tendency in the past in this country to believe that measles is a minor disease with no serious complications, whereas, as she knows and as Senator Peter Baume and those of us who are medical practitioners know, and as others know, it is in fact a very serious disease, because the short term complications of measles, particularly respiratory infections, present a very severe threat to life. The long term complications, particularly the neurological complications, cause great difficulties. Therefore, governments of all persuasions in this country have encouraged people to have vaccination against measles, and I believe we have succeeded to a certain extent, except as Senator Crowley has implied, there is a tendency for people, once the incidence decreases considerably, to forget about this. The world has been successful so far in wiping out smallpox. We should be successful in our community in wiping out measles, but we can only do this by continuous immunisation. The Australian Government and the State governments are, in fact, working together to ensure that this occurs by 1988. I think that the program announced by my colleague Dr Blewett, and by the State governments, will result in us being successful in this regard, but we will be successful only if we can change the community attitude. I think there is sufficient evidence that the community attitude is changing and that we will be successful in having universal immunisation, and that being so, I look forward to 1988 indeed being a measles free year, but also all the decades after that being the same. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Government require, under the prescribed payments system of taxation, withholding tax to be deducted from the whole amount on an invoice which itemises separately labour and materials? Is the Minister aware that the Australian Taxation Office is now insisting that `payers' must have separate written contracts for labour and separate written contracts for materials, as well as separate invoices for labour and materials for each payment made? Is not this requirement placing sub-contractors at a distinct disadvantage by withholding that full amount from their suppliers? Senator WALSH —The question covers matters of detailed administration of the prescribed payments system which I do not know off the top of my head. I will get an answer from the Treasurer. While I am about it, I will also get the Treasurer to see whether there is a more accurate figure of the amount of tax-an updated estimate-which would otherwise be evaded were it not for the existence of the prescribed payments system. The most recent estimate I remember seeing, which was some time ago, was that about $400m a year was being collected in taxation due which would have been evaded had that system not been introduced. I remember that the usual friends of the tax evaders in the community were highly critical of the PPS at the time it was introduced. They grossly misrepresented the way in which it would operate and so on, and I suspect that they are still doing so. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. Has the increase in secondary allowances this year resulted in an increase in the take-up rate? Are residents of Australia's Territories, such as Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island, eligible for these allowances? Senator RYAN —I am pleased to be able to inform Senator Zakharov and the Senate that, as a result of the increases in the secondary allowance scheme, there has been quite a marked increase in the take-up rate. As yet we do not have the firm statistics on what the take-up rate is, but the increase in applications is 9 per cent and it is expected that the increase in applications will be higher than that. It is still my view, despite the successful information campaigns which have been conducted throughout my Department and in which State education departments have co-operated, that there are probably students who are eligible for this increase in the SAS and who are not aware of it. The reasons for this would be that eligibility is on a family income test. The students of poorer families are eligible and, of course, they are often the families which, for a variety of reasons, are less informed about government services and programs. I do recognise that school principals and school counsellors are conscious of the need to inform students of this eligibility, but from my own experiences in travelling around the countryside and speaking to students and teachers in schools and to parents, I believe that there is still room for more take-up of this benefit if information is more readily available. For this reason my Department, in co-operation with John Dawkins's Office of Youth Affairs, is planning further information campaigns to encourage further inquiries about this level of assistance. It is now considerable. We have increased the secondary allowance several times. It is now $35 a week at the full rate and further increases are planned, which will bring it to the same level as the youth dole within a couple of years, which is a most desirable development, as I am sure all honourable senators will agree. But at $35 a week it is now a substantial amount of assistance to a student from a poorer family, or to the parent in the case where it is payable to the parent. I hope all honourable senators will be aware of this increased rate and, in their contacts with students and teachers, point out that it is available. In answer to the part of Senator Zakharov's question as to the eligibility for this benefit of students living in the Territories, the secondary allowance scheme applies to Christmas Island, but not to Cocos (Keeling) Islands nor to Norfolk Island. The reason for this policy is that the locals of the two islands concerned-that is, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Norfolk Island-are not Australian citizens and not taxpayers. Both of those conditions are met on Christmas Island. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask: In the light of the laudable displays and statements at the luncheon today between the Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore of friendship and support between the two countries, does the Government have any objection or restriction on the sale of Australian defence materiel or equipment to the Republic of Singapore? Senator BUTTON —I cannot answer that question in detail, but the general answer is yes. I am sure it will have the agreement of the Prime Minister of Singapore, to whom the honourable senator referred in his question. Senator LEWIS —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. It is about the structure known as the Anti- apartheid Information Centre erected illegally-that is, without any permit-on public parkland outside the South African Embassy. I ask the Minister: What services have been connected to that illegal structure? On whose authority were those services connected? Who paid for the work involved? What action does the Minister intend to take to ensure his previous, but so far apparently ignored, direction to remove this illegal structure is complied with? When does the Minister anticipate removal will commence? By what date might it be completed? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Lewis would appreciate that I represent the Minister for Territories in this place. The Minister has given me some information in my brief file which states: On 4 April 1986 the ACT Electricity Authority received an application for the connection of a temporary supply point for Block 2 Section 44 Yarralumla ACT (corner of State Circle and Rhodes Place). General Conditions of Supply, determined by the Authority under Section 18 (2) (g) of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act, 1962 as amended, provide the following: 13.1 A Consumer must at all times during which electricity is supplied continue to have an approved legal right (i.e. ownership, lease or licence) in the premises to which electricity is supplied.' The particular section of the conditions was included in November 1985 after consultation with the Australian Government Solicitor's Office regarding the Authority's position in relation to illegal occupancy of premises. The particular application received in the name of Trades and Labour Council of the ACT Inc. for the Southern Africa Liberation Centre was not refused. At this stage the Authority has requested evidence of `legal right in particular premises' from the Trades and Labour Council. That is as much information as I have available. Senator LEWIS —I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister get the balance of the answer for me? Senator GIETZELT —Yes. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to a media statement issued by Bryan Noakes, Director-General of the Confederation of Australian Industry Industrial Council, in which he stated that national superannuation would mean lower retirement income and that the extra cost to employers would slow down investment and lower the standard of living? Mr Noakes also stated: . . . and while employers may be the ones making the cash outlays, superannuation will be paid for by all Australians. I ask the Minister: In the light of the statements made by Mr Noakes, will he inform the Senate whether the claims made by Mr Noakes are correct in relation to any proposed national superannuation scheme? Senator WALSH —I think that in general the answer to the question has to be no. I take up particularly Mr Noakes's point that while employers may be making cash outlays superannuation will be paid for by all Australians. In a sense, that is true, but it is a grossly inadequate interpretation of the facts, because the underlying rationale of the superannuation case is that at least a portion of the increased output accruing through higher productivity would be taken in the form of superannuation but in lieu of a claim for higher wages. It is important, particularly from the employers' perspective, that if the figure, be it 2 per cent or 3 per cent, were the same for either a payment to a superannuation fund or an increase in wages, the superannuation fund payment is, by a significant margin-something like 16 per cent I believe-a cheaper alternative for the employer than a wages claim of the same amount, because there are on-costs for wages, rises which do not apply to superannuation. It also should be noted that superannuation, as it exists now, is very much the preserve of the well off, a fact which, it would appear, does not worry Mr Noakes and his present employers very much. The tax expenditures on superannuation, principally through the exemption of income earned within funds from company or personal taxation, cost more than $3 billion a year. It is growing and it is primarily assisting high income earning males. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that 73 per cent of those earning $520 a week and over-that is, more than $27,000 a year-have superannuation, compared with only 23 per cent of those earning less that $320 a week, or about $16,000 a year and that only 40 per cent of the total work force is involved in superannuation funds. As the figures show, the benefits are very heavily skewed at present in favour of people in the upper salary levels. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that at least 3,000 dolphins are drowning in northern Australian waters each year in gill nets set by Taiwanese fishermen? Is it true that the Taiwanese gill net fishermen are fishing for tuna, shark and mackerel despite the opposition of sections of Australia's fishing industry? What action is the Minister proposing to prevent further dolphin deaths and to conserve the fish stocks within Australian territorial waters? In particular, will the Minister give serious consideration at the time of the forthcoming renegotiation of fishing licences to requiring the Taiwanese to use long lines, which are harmless to dolphins, rather than gill nets? Senator WALSH —I am glad Senator Haines has asked me a question about dolphins. It is a change from all of those questions she asks about economic growth, interest rates, wages, inflation and so on. In response, I am advised by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, that the figure of 3,000 was based on research carried out some years ago when 30 or 40 vessels were operating. Since there are now only 16, it is reasonable to assume that the figure is very much less than that. The Taiwanese gill net fishermen are catching tuna, shark and so on, as Senator Haines said, and have been doing so since 1974. However, regarding objections by the Australian industry per se, there have been none, although some individuals have expressed personal opposition. The Minister has indicated quite clearly in parliament and elsewhere to fishing principals that he will be seeking to stop the accidental netting of dolphins. But it is unlikely that long lining is an economically viable alternative. Finally, all Commonwealth fisheries management, including foreign fishing arrangements, is based on the concept of sustainable yield and stock conservation, and the gill net fishery is no exception to that broad objective or goal. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer the Minister to the response of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission on the provision of increased opportunities for higher education in the western and south-western suburbs of Sydney. I also refer the Minister to Press statements in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph this morning which indicate that the Government has completely rejected the provision of university facilities in this area, in which more and more citizens are recognising the need for better education facilities. Has the Government rejected the notion of university facilities for the residents of the western and south-western suburbs of Sydney? What is the Government's response to the Tertiary Education Commission's report? Senator RYAN —I welcome the question from Senator Richardson on, firstly, the Tertiary Education Commission's response to advocacy for a university in the western suburbs and, secondly, the response of our Government. Of course, the two things are not identical. I welcome the question because there has been quite a lot of misrepresentation in the media as to the issues involved-as to CTEC's advice and as to our Government's position. There has been no closing of the door on the concept of a university for the western suburbs. I was pleased to see that the CTEC advice included a proposal for the development of university level studies in the western suburbs, preferably by means of a university college of one of the existing leading universities in New South Wales. Although there will be very careful examination of both the Parry committee's report, which was a report to the State Government of New South Wales, and CTEC's advice to use, by our Government in consultation with the State Government, I can indicate at this stage that it is certainly the intention of our Government to improve higher education opportunities in the western suburbs. It is certainly true that the western suburbs have been disadvantaged in terms of educational facilities, mainly because of poor planning decisions taken by previous New South Wales Governments-I hasten to add that I do not include the Wran Government. Anyone who knows New South Wales will agree that the siting of Macquarie University was not sensible in view of the growth areas out in the west. Macquarie University should have been sited in the west, but we cannot wipe out history or change what is. We are operating at a time when there are enormous demands on the higher education budget-legitimate demands coming from many parts of Australia where there is inadequate access to higher education, both colleges of advanced education and universities. We are conscious that in the past the western suburbs have been neglected and that they do need more opportunities for higher education. Indeed it has been the policy of our Government, acting on very strong advice from the Tertiary Education Commission, to develop the two CAEs currently operating in the western suburbs-that is, the Hawkesbury Agricultural College and the Nepean CAE. Hawkesbury Agricultural College is a college of great prestige in New South Wales but until recently it has been narrow in the range of training that it offers. We are working with Hawkesbury to increase the range of courses, to bring in business and technology courses and things of that kind. Nepean CAE, which is one of the newest CAEs in NSW, is also receiving developmental and expansion funds from us. Those two developments will continue, but at the same time we must address the legitimate demands by the communities in the western suburbs of Sydney for some access to university level courses in that area. Of course, students from the western suburbs can and do find places in Sydney University, in the University of New South Wales and, indeed, in Macquarie University, but there is no doubt that they are at a geographical disadvantage in doing so and that they would benefit from facilities in the western suburbs. At the same time I am sure that Senator Richardson is aware that there is a primary problem in the west in that participation rates in upper secondary years are very poor. They are the poorest in the State and among the poorest in the nation. At a time when we are planning for the provision of university level courses in the west, we must also seriously address the problem of low participation rates. If we were able to provide university level facilities in the west, but did nothing about participation rates in the outer western suburbs, those new places would not be taken substantially by students in the western suburbs, they would be taken by students from more advantaged parts of Sydney in terms of secondary education. Thus we have a complex range of issues to address. I believe that we will address them constructively with the co-operation of the New South Wales Government. Just last evening I had a constructive meeting with the New South Wales Minister for Education, Rodney Cavalier, and the chancellors and vice-chancellors of the three universities-- Senator Archer —Seven minutes. Senator RYAN —There are many senators in this place, including New South Wales senators on the other side, who are genuinely interested in this and who genuinely want to know the stage we are at in responding to this legitimate need. In conclusion, any stories about absolute opposition to university level courses being offered in the west are wrong. Our Government has not reached a final decision on this matter. We are open to discussion and negotiation with New South Wales and we will seriously consider CTEC's advice, which is basically very constructive advice although it goes in a different direction from the Parry committee's recommendations. I hope that before very long we will be able to offer a better deal to students in the west than they have had to date. Senator ARCHER —My question is to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. As part of the drug offensive the Prime Minister emphasised the fact that the Government intends to extend the power to intercept phone calls to the States and that the Australian Federal Police will have the power to intercept suspect mail. In view of this, will the Minister heed the advice of those experienced royal commissioners who appeared on last week's Four Corners program and who were unanimous in recommending wider powers for the National Crime Authority? In particular, will the Minister grant the NCA the same power to intercept telephone calls as applies to the AFP now and is soon to be granted to State police, and is it the intention of the Minister also to empower the NCA to intercept suspect mail? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government will give due weight to any sensible views expressed in this area. Views of that description do not often come from the other side of the chamber, not least from the spokesman on this portfolio, but we will have regard to those views also to the extent that they are offered in good faith from time to time. Senator Peter Baume —You are a bore; that is what you are. Senator GARETH EVANS —What else did you have in mind? Senator Peter Baume —A bore, I said. Senator GARETH EVANS —I could offer a few home truths in your direction, too, but that would not be helpful to the state of the debate on this subject. I will refer the question to the Special Minister of State to see what he may want to say on the subject of phone tapes. The Government has made clear its position in the past-that it does not think it is appropriate to extend the power at the federal level-but I will seek any further information the Minister may want to give. Senator BOLKUS —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether he is aware of information to the effect that the satellite terminal at the Watsonia Barracks in Melbourne is apparently involved in the targeting of Tomahawk sea-to-ship cruise missiles by contributing ocean surveillance information to the United States Navy's pool of intelligence on the Tomahawk's intended targets. Is he also aware that the Tomahawk cruise missiles, of which 400 are nuclear, are presently being deployed in the Pacific on United States ships and submarines? Does this indicate an Australian contribution to United States preparations for nuclear warfare? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Minister for Defence advises me that he is aware of the continuing speculation that the satellite earth terminal at Watsonia is involved in the targeting of the Tomahawk anti-ship cruise missile. The reports about the involvement of the satellite terminal at Watsonia are, however, based on a misconception about its function. The satellite terminal at Watsonia is a communications facility operated by the 6th Signals Regiment on behalf of the Defence organisation and simply transmits and receives military communications. Some of these communications are intelligence related. Consistent with the handling by this Government and previous governments of questions concerning operational intelligence matters, I am not prepared to comment on the nature of those intelligence communications. The honourable senator's question appears to reflect some confusion which exists in public reports on this matter about details of the Tomahawk program. I am advised that the anti-ship version of the missile, of which slightly fewer than 600 are to be deployed, will not be nuclear armed. The nuclear-armed Tomahawks will all be configured for land attack, and 80 per cent of all land attack Tomahawks will be conventionally armed. Senator HAMER —Does the Minister representing the Attorney-General recall being a member of a Senate Committee which recommended, inter alia, that national security documents should automatically be declassified after a prescribed time, unless re-examination of the documents justified a continuation of their security classification? Did the Committee also recommend that Cabinet documents should not carry a national security classification unless their contents justified that classification? Was the Minister a party to those recommendations? What progress has been made in the last three years in implementing those recommendations? Senator GARETH EVANS —I was a member of the Committee in question and I joined in the Committee's recommendations on that matter. I was party to those recommendations and an enthusiastic supporter of them. That support has not waned subsequently. I know that some efforts were being made to move along the declassification program, but I have not kept pace-if that is the right word-with developments over the last 12 months in this area. I will seek further information and communicate it to the Senate accordingly. Senator GILES —I refer the Minister for Community Services to the report tabled yesterday entitled `Nursing Homes and Hostels Review'. What will be the effect of the review on the number of nursing home beds and other aged accommodation and on the employment of trained nurses and other workers engaged in the care of the aged? Senator GRIMES —The inevitable result of the review, or any future policy for the provision of aged persons accommodation, will be that we or any other government will have to increase expenditure to provide nursing home and hostel accommodation, because the number of people in the aged population will increase in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the general population. What the review says, though, is that in the past we have concentrated on nursing homes and paid insufficient attention to home and community care and hostel accommodation, the less dependent form of accommodation, and that in future we should correct this. That is not only the view of the review. It is also the view of the Government; it is the view of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes chaired by Senator Giles and, I am informed I must say, initiated in the Senate by Senator Haines; it is the view of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure chaired by Mr Leo McLeay; and it is the view of the Auditor-General. What has happened in the past is that we have developed home and community care and residential accommodation in isolation from each other. Mr President, one could say that governments in the past have been like the St George rugby league team last weekend in that they were not too clear on what was happening. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is treading on dangerous ground now. Senator GRIMES —They were not too clear that the left hand knew what the right hand was doing. We intend to develop a policy under which we will all know what we are doing and have a clear idea of where we are going. We need to provide nursing homes and hostels in the right proportion and carry out proper assessments so that those who enter accommodation subsidised by the Commonwealth get the appropriate care at the appropriate level. We need to ensure that the standard of care is uniform and adequate throughout Australia and that the methods of funding are such that the funding is adequate for the provision of those needs. If we can do that we will provide the circumstances under which aged people will be able to get the accommodation and services that they need when they need them and they will have the security of knowing that if they need more dependent care it will be available to them, which is not the case now, and the taxpayers will know that their funds are being used in a sensible way. I hope that over the next 10 or 15 years whichever government is in power can develop that. I hope we will be more successful than St George was last weekend. Senator KILGARIFF —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of the importance of the gold mining industry to the Northern Territory as a means of contributing to the development of the Territory and assisting the Territory to become more viable financially? Given the significance of the industry to the Territory, why has the Government not acted to ensure that hearings of the Federal Government's gold tax inquiry are held in the Northern Territory so that Territory gold mining interests, both company and individual, would be able to give valuable evidence? Lastly, will the Minister now act to ensure that such hearings are held in the Northern Territory in order to allow the people who will be most gravely affected by any introduction of a gold tax to make their views and concerns known? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the importance, and potential importance, of the gold mining industry in the Northern Territory as elsewhere in Australia. I was not aware that hearings had not been formally scheduled in that part of the country. It is, of course, a matter for Mr Gutman, who is conducting the inquiry, and, for that matter, the Treasurer, whose ministerial responsibility that inquiry is rather than my own. I will refer the matter to the Treasurer to see what Mr Gutman's response might be to the suggestion. I simply make the point that there has been, of course, ample opportunity for written submissions to be made to the inquiry and there has been concern expressed that that inquiry be conducted as expeditiously as possible in order to enable decisions to be made and the air to be settled one way or the other on this issue as soon as possible. It may well be that that has constrained to some extent the possibility of extensive hearings being held. But, as I say, I will refer this matter to the Treasurer to see what he has to say. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 20 March, Senator Short asked me a question in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs about Libyan diplomats in Australia. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer: It is correct that the Libyan authorities decided to transfer three of their government officials from Australia, two from the Libyan People's Bureau and one from the Libyan Cultural Centre in Melbourne. No reason has been provided to the Department of Foreign Affairs for this decision. The three officials have not yet left Australia. Two are, however, expected to leave today-that is 15 April-and the other next week. The Department of Foreign Affairs has advised the Libyan People's Bureau that the three officials are not to be replaced. The honourable senator will be aware that there is a ceiling applied to the number of Libyan-based staff in the Bureau in Canberra. The Government has taken no decision to require the closure of the Libyan Cultural Centre. The Centre was established in response to an expressed need within the Arab and Moslem community in Melbourne for such a facility, and the departure of the Libyan-based Director does not remove that need. The remaining staff of the Centre are Australian citizens. The Government will not therefore be pursuing the question of closure. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Hill on 19 March also asked me a question, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, about aid to Papua New Guinea. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided an answer which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- I have seen the article in the Canberra Times of 14 March. 2. I am advised that the Department of Foreign Affairs is not able to confirm the details contained in the article about the use by Members of Parliament of PNG Government funds which is anyway an internal matter for the PNG Government on which it is not appropriate for me to comment. 3. Most Australian aid to PNG is given in the form of direct grants to the PNG Government, which contribute directly to PNG General Revenue. PNG estimates Australian budget support will account for 24% of total PNG expenditure in 1986. 4. The Australian Government has also established ongoing dialogue with the PNG Government in regard to the Australian Aid Program. Annual Development Reviews provide a further means of monitoring the use of Australian aid and seek to ensure its effective use in the development of Papua New Guinea. 5. The Australia/PNG Aid Agreement 1986-87- 1990-91 provides for a reducing budget support component and an increase in aid funds dispersed through the provision of direct services and goods from Australia. Senator GIETZELT —Yesterday Senator Reid asked a question concerning waiting times for nursing home accommodation in the Australian Capital Territory, as well as some problems associated with the privately owned Morling Lodge Nursing Home. The Minister has advised me that he is aware of waiting times for nursing home accommodation in the Australian Capital Territory and has provided the following response: The Government recently announced approval for 60 additional nursing home beds in Canberra which is expected to have a significant effect on waiting times. The industrial dispute at the Morling Lodge Nursing Home is regrettable and obviously does nothing to assist the plight of those people requiring nursing home care. Morling Lodge is a private nursing home operated by the Baptist Homes Trust and neither the Government nor the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority are a party to the award covering private nursing home employees. If Senator Reid is not satisfied with the response from the Minister for Territories, I suggest that she may require that a question be placed with the Minister responsible for industrial affairs in respect of the later aspect of the question. The Minister for Territories is not able to comment because it is a private matter between another authority and the unions concerned. Assent to the following Bills reported: Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill 1986 Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The delay in the enactment of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill and the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill has necessitated the making of amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. Consequential amendments are now required, in particular, in relation to the date of application of particular provisions of the new legislation. While the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill is still before the Parliament, it is only possible to alter that Bill, in conformity with the Governor-General's message, to deal with the date of its commencement. It has been necessary, therefore, to introduce this separate Bill to deal with other required amendments. Clause 3 of the Bill gives effect to the Government's undertaking that the dependants of incapacitated Veterans who, prior to 6 June 1985, were receiving a pension in respect of that incapacity, would have the option of commuting their fortnightly payments to a once-only lump sum representing three years' instalments. The Bill gives a period of 6 months from the commencement date to make an election to commute. This amendment maintains the six month period of election. Clause 5 will make a new provision in respect of the application of the Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions to decisions assessing the rate of pension payable to a Veteran made after the commencement of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Under clause 5, the Repatriation Commission will be bound to use the Guide in all assessment cases determined after 1 November 1986. However, it may be used before that date if sufficient information is available to enable its use. The Commission will be required to state in its decision that the Guide was used in a particular case. Where the Guide has been applied by the Repatriation Commission, the Veterans' Review Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal must apply the Guide when conducting a review of an assessment determination. Under clause 7 similar amendments will be made to the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940. Clause 4 of the Bill will extend the time for lodging an application for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in respect of a Veterans' Review Board entitlement decision, to three months after the commencement of the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. This provision will give effect to a Government undertaking to provide for appeals, under the VEB, against decisions made since 6 June 1985 on the amended standard of proof. The provision is necessary because, in many cases, the three month appeal period under the Repatriation Act will have expired. The Government's undertaking on provision of rights of review also related to applications for review of decisions from the first level of the repatriation determining system, that is, from the Repatriation Commission to the Veterans' Review Board. However, no legislative action is required as, at the date of commencement, there will in all cases be an unexpired portion of the twelve months' period already prescribed for the lodgment of applications for review to the Veterans' Review Board. The Bill will also make further amendments to the Public Service Act 1922 and the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 consequential on the amendment of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill to enable Defence Force personnel to be deemed to have been allotted for service by instrument in writing issued by the Minister for Defence. This Bill also makes amendments to the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940 to parallel those the Government will be moving to the Veterans Entitlements Bill arising from the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I have received the following message from the House of Representatives: Message No. 292 MR PRESIDENT, The House of Representatives returns to the Senate the Bill intituled ``A Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of pensions and other benefits to, and to provide medical and other treatment for, veterans and certain other persons, and for other purposes'', and acquaints the Senate that the House of Representatives has refrained from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of Message No. 175 received from the Senate in reference to the said Bill, and resolved to consider the said Message. The House of Representatives has not made the requested amendments pressed by the Senate. The House of Representatives informs the Senate that the Senate's requests for amendments would be acceptable to the House in the form indicated by the annexed Schedule C if proposed in conjunction with certain amendments also indicated in Schedule C. JOAN CHILD Speaker Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That consideration of the Message be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. The PRESIDENT —I have received the following message from the House of Representatives: Message No. 293 MR PRESIDENT, The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate a copy of a Message from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending amendments in the Bill intituled ``A Bill for an Act to make certain transitional provisions and consequential amendments related to the enactment of the `Veterans' Entitlements Act 1985' '', together with a copy of the said Bill as forwarded by the Speaker to the Governor-General for Assent, and acquaints the Senate that the House of Representatives has agreed to the amendments recommended by His Excellency the Governor-General in this Bill, with which it desires the concurrence of the Senate. JOAN CHILD Speaker Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That consideration of the Message, in Committee of the Whole, be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That the Senate do now adjourn. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber, Estimates Committee B will meet in Committee rooms 1 and 2 and Estimates Committee C will meet in Committee room 6. Prior to the sitting of the committees the bells will be rung for three minutes. Senate adjourned at 3.46 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 299) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 May 1985: (1) In view of the fact that Sir Edward Lyons, who resigned on 30 April 1985 as Chairman of the Queensland Totalizator Agency Board (TAB), is not only a trustee of the National Party in Queensland, but also a director of the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation: (a) have any attempts been made to investigate the alleged large sums invested at the TAB by Sir Edward Lyons; and (b) have any further attempts been made to investigate the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation for the purposes of taxation; if not, is it possible for the Government to ascertain the workings of the Foundation, the remuneration paid to its Directors, and to obtain an audited financial statement of its financial affairs and dealings. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) Apart from, perhaps, the Commissioner of Taxation, the Commonwealth has no interest in this matter. (b) The secrecy provisions of the income tax law prohibit the Commissioner of taxation from divulging information about the taxation affairs of particular taxpayers. I am therefore unable to answer the question. (Question No. 311) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 May 1985: (1) Was any action taken at the time of the judgment of the High Court, made in 1961 by the then Mr Justice Taylor, in dismissing an appeal from the then Mr Johannes Bjelke-Petersen of Kingaroy, now Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, Premier of Queensland, against a taxation assessment of moneys owing to the Commissioner of Taxation from Mr Bjelke-Petersen's oil exploration interests in Queensland, in view of Mr Justice Taylor's comments on the case. (2) Is there any on-going taxation enquiry into the business activities of Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen. (3) Was any investigation ever undertaken into the Premier's income or business activities before or after Mr Justice Taylor's comments and, if so, what was the result. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) The secrecy provisions of the income tax law prohibit the Commissioner of Taxation from divulging information about the taxation affairs of particular taxpayers. I am therefore unable to answer the honourable Senator's questions. (Question No. 696) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: What is the expected revenue gain from capital gains tax in financial year ended 30 June 1995. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The revenue from capital gains tax in the financial year ended 30 June 1995 is estimated to be of the order of $150m. (Question No. 771) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) How did Treasury arrive at its estimate that $310m revenue was lost because business entertainment expenses were tax deductible, and what sampling of taxation returns was carried out. (2) Did the $310m figure simply represent the amount that would have been raised if business entertainment expenses had not been deductible in the 1984-85 survey year, with no allowance for changes in expenditure patterns, nor for changes in other government outlays and receipts as a result of any decision to end deductibility. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Treasurer does not propose to release details of the basis of the estimate of $310 million contained in his statement of 19 September 1985 on Reform of the Australian Taxation System of the gain to revenue in 1986-87 that will be produced from disallowing income tax deductions for entertainment expenses. However, broadly stated, the estimate was derived from information held by the Commissioner of Taxation and from data from other sources. It took into account such factors as the turnover of restaurants, allowances paid to employees for entertainment expenses and non-restaurant entertainment expenses. (2) The estimate of $310 million is in respect of the 1986-87 financial year and takes into account the non-deductibility of entertainment expenses after 19 September 1985. The estimate makes no allowance for changes in expenditure patterns nor changes in other government outlays and receipts as a result of the announcement made on 19 September 1985 to end deductibility. (Question No. 897) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: (1) What was the average percentage rate of income taxation paid by all individuals in the latest 3 financial years for which information is available? (2) Is income taxation data compiled, inter alia, according to the industry in which the taxpayer works? (3) If the answer to (2) is yes, what was the average rate of income taxation paid by individuals who were classified as primary producers in the latest 3 years? (4) What was the average net income of primary producers compared with the average net income of all individual taxpayers in the latest 3 years? (5) What were the average dollar amounts of income tax paid (a) by primary producers; and (b) by all individual taxpayers in the latest 3 years? Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The average rate of income tax paid by all taxable individuals for the last 3 income years was: 1981-82-22.43% 1982-83-21.86% 1983-84-23.04% (2) Individual taxpayers who derive income from business sources are classified in income tax statistics according to the industry from which the major proportion of their business income is derived. Hence, taxpayers engaged in primary production activities may be classified to an alternate industry if their non-primary production business income is greater than their income from primary production. The statistics provided for primary producers in the following parts to this question include data only for those taxpayers classified to the primary production industries. (3) The average rate of income tax paid by taxable individuals classified as primary producers in the latest 3 income years was: 1981-82-21.65% 1982-83-21.05% 1983-84-22.22% (4) The average net income of primary producers compared with the average net income of all individual taxpayers in the latest 3 income years was: All individuals Primary producers $ $ 1981-82... 12 368 10 690 1982-83... 13 527 9 070 1983-84... 14 472 12 497 (5) The average amounts of income tax paid by taxable primary producers and all taxable individual taxpayers for the latest 3 years were: All individuals Primary producers $ $ 1981-82... 3 172 3 216 1982-83... 3 410 3 141 1983-84... 3 756 3 475 (Question No. 956) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) What is the date when the Introductory English Centre is to take up occupancy of the Pearce Primary School. (2) What alterations to Pearce Primary School were required to accommodate the Introductory English Centre. (3) What is the cost of those alterations. (4) Have other education groups been relocated from Pearce Primary School to accommodate the Introductory English Centre. (5) Where have they been relocated to. (6) What is the cost of that relocation. Senator Gietzelt —The following response has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (1) It is expected that the Secondary Introductory English Centre will take up occupancy of the infants wing of Pearce Primary School in late May 1986, providing that building works proceed to completion without delays. (2) Alterations to Pearce Primary School comprise two stages: (i) Stage 1 is the consolidation of the school into the main primary wing as total school enrolment no longer justifies occupation of both an infants wing and a primary wing. This involves the relocation of one kindergarten class from the infants wing to an unused classroom in the primary wing. Necessary modifications in the primary wing will include minor plumbing work, removal of some partitioning, carpeting and relocation of some shelving. (ii) Stage 2 involves modification of the infants wing in order to accommodate the Introductory English Centre. Alterations will include: division of existing classrooms to provide a sufficient number of smaller teaching spaces for smaller intensive language classes including removal of partitioning and relocation of some shelving; upgrading of the existing infants toilet facility to adult size; provision of additional lighting in some rooms to meet required standards; provision of separate switching for each classroom. (3) The National Capital Development Commission has indicated that the preliminary estimate for consolidation and modification work is in the order of $40,000. A more precise estimate will be available once documentation is completed. (4) Yes. The accommodation of the Introduction English Centre has made it necessary to relocate the office of the Tuggeranong Area Pre-school. (5) The four officers who work in this area will be relocated to Taylor Primary School. (6) This relocation may involve some minor work, including partitioning, at an approximate cost of $2,000. Senator Walsh —On 23 April 1985 (Hansard, page 1351), Senator Robert Ray asked me, as Acting Treasurer, the following question without notice: Are donations to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation tax deductible by writing off large donations as advertising costs. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I would refer the honourable Senator to the Press Release issued on 30 July 1982 by the former Treasurer, the Hon. John Howard, M.P. The Press Release records the advice of then Acting Commissioner of Taxation that there is no provision in the Income Tax Assessment Act which would authorise the allowance of income tax deductions for contributions to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, or indeed any other fund established in Australia to promote the fortunes of a political party. The Commissioner of Taxation has assured me that this advice is still valid. Senator Walsh —On 8 October 1985 (Hansard, pages 774 to 775), Senator Michael Baume asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice concerning seminars: Where will the line be drawn in deciding which functions involving meals are deductible and which are not? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The question of drawing the line between business lunches and seminar meals is addressed in the legislation enacted to give effect to the new entertainment expense rules. For this purpose the legislation ensures that the cost of meals forming part of a seminar can qualify for deduction only in relation to ``eligible seminars''. To qualify as an eligible seminar for these purposes the seminar must have a duration of at least 4 hours, excluding any time spent over meals and recreation breaks. A seminar that takes place solely over the course of a meal (for example, a luncheon address) would not qualify as an eligible seminar. In addition, eligible seminars are restricted to seminars arranged, broadly, for the purpose of the exchange of information or ideas on an industry-wide or profession-wide basis. Discussions relating to the operations of a particular firm would not qualify on this basis. Staff training seminars may also qualify as an eligible seminar provided they are conducted on the premises of an unrelated person who is engaged in the business of providing seminar facilities. Ordinary business discussions occurring over the course of a luncheon do not qualify for deduction under the new rules. Senator Walsh —On 9 October 1985 (Hansard, page 900), Senator Reid asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: How many new staff will be put on the Compliance area of the Australian Taxation Office to check whether expenses claimed under other categories are in fact for entertainment? In light of the difficulties admitted by the Minister in answer to Senator Michael Baume yesterday and his answer to Senator Messner today, will there be a Taxation Office official at seminars and conventions to see literally what people eat and drink and under what circumstances they do so? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that the Australian Taxation Office's internal examination of tax returns together with standard auditing practices will be structured to detect claims made for deduction of entertainment expenses however described. Because money spent on business entertainment up to 19 September 1985 can continue to be claimed as a deduction in 1985-86 tax returns, the Commissioner has also advised that staff resources will be set aside to ensure that such expenses were incurred before 20 September 1985. A specific additional staff allocation for the Australian Taxation Office has been proposed following enactment of the entertainment expense legislation. The question of staff resources necessary to ensure the appropriate implementation of tax reform measures generally is currently under consideration. On the question of drawing the line between business lunches and seminar meals, the honourable senator should refer to my answer to the question raised by Senator Michael Baume on 8 October 1985. Senator Walsh —On 13 November 1985 (Hansard, page 2071), Senator Parer asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Will the Minister representing the Treasurer advise whether traditional Christmas picnics or parties provided by employers for their employees, their spouses and children, will be tax deductible to employers under the Government's tax package? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Deductions for the cost of providing Christmas picnics and parties for employees are denied by the operation of section 51AE of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, which applies to expenditure incurred after 19 September 1985 in respect of the provision of entertainment. (Question No. 811) Senator Mason asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspices of the Minister's Department. (2) What are the names of these authorities. (3) What appeal mechanisms, if any, exist for the general public to lodge a complaint against these authorities. (4) If it is proved that any member of staff of any of these authorities is guilty of incompetence, what action, if any, could be taken by a member of the public to sue the authority for compensation; if it is not possible to sue the authority, why is that the case. (5) How many cases concerning these authorities are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and what is the delay at present between the listing of a case and its hearing before the Tribunal. (6) If any Statutory Authority under the Minister's Department cannot be sued, will the Minister consider amending the relevant legislation to make this possible. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: For the purpose of identifying statutory authorities within my portfolio the definition of a statutory authority used by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has been applied. (1) Two (2) (i) The Superannuation Fund Investment Trust (SFIT) (ii) The Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office (AGRBO) (3) There are no specific appeal provisions in the Superannuation Act 1976 in so far as the Act relates to SFIT. Nevertheless, SFIT is subject to general administrative law such as the Ombudsman Act, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, etc. as well as the normal legal processes through the courts. Regarding AGRBO, however, in addition to remedies at common law, the following avenues of appeal are available to persons aggrieved by an action of the Commissioner for Superannuation: (a) the Superannuation Act provides that a person who is affected by, and dissatisfied with, a reviewable decision may, within 30 days after first becoming aware of the decision (or within such further period as the Commissioner allows) by notice in writing containing reasons, request the Commissioner to reconsider the decision; (b) the Superannuation Act also provides that applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of reviewable decisions that may have been confirmed or varied on reconsideration by the Commissioner; (c) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act provides that an appeal to the Federal Court can be made on a question of law arising out of an AAT decision; (d) the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (AD(JR) Act) entitles a person aggrieved by an administrative decision taken under the Superannuation Act 1976 to seek an order for review of the decision in the Federal Court on grounds specified in the AD(JR) Act; and (e) the Commissioner for Superannuation is an ``agency'' for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and all requests for documents and amendment to personal records are considered by him or his delegate under the provisions of the FOI Act. Applications may also be made to the AAT for review of decisions taken by the commissioner or his delegate under the FOI Act and an appeal to the Federal Court can be made on a question of law arising out of an FOI AAT decision. (4) The Attorney-General's Department has advised that, unless an authority is statutorily protected, it is liable for the torts of its servants committed in the course of their duty. Where employees, acting in the course of their duty are incompetent and, as a consequence, loss is suffered by a member of the public, it will commonly be found that the act or omission which was seen as incompetent was also tortious. In the absence of a denial of liability the negligent giving of erroneous advice is tortious where the advice is given by a person having a duty of care to one who suffers foreseeable damage as a result of reasonably relying on that advice. Many other forms of incompetence would also be tortious, but each case would need to be considered on its own facts. Neither of the Authorities listed in answer to part (2) of this question is statutorily protected against general liability in tort. In addition, pursuant to Section 29 of the Superannuation Act 1976, the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and ``may sue and be sued'' in its corporate name. (5) There are no such cases concerning SFIT. AGRBO has at present 27 requests for review by the AAT on hand. The average length of time between the receipt of a case by the AAT and its hearing by the AAT for cases heard over the past six months has been approximately 29 weeks. (6) Not applicable: see (4) above. (Question No. 820) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 February: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspices of the Minister's Department. (2) What are the names of these authorities. (3) What appeal mechanisms, if any, exist for the general public to lodge a complaint against these authorities. (4) If it is proved that any member of staff of any of these authorities is guilty of incompetence, what action, if any, could be taken by a member of the public to sue the authority for compensation; if it is not possible to sue the authority, why is that the case. (5) How many cases concerning these authorities are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and what is the delay at present between the listing of a case and its hearing before the Tribunal. (6) If any statutory authority under the Minister's Department cannot be sued, will the Minister consider amending the relevant legislation to make this possible. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) One. (2) The Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. (3) The function of the Commissioner under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 is to determine matters and questions arising under the Act. Where a determination by the Commissioner is made under the Act, an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of the determination by or on behalf of a party to the determination. No other person may make such an application, and there are no appeal mechanisms available to the general public to lodge a complaint against the Commissioner. The Commonwealth Ombudsman may also investigate complaints concerning the administration of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. (4) None. However, the Governor-General may terminate the appointment of the Commissioner for inefficiency, misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity. The officers of the Australian Public Service employed in the Office of the Commissioner are officers of the Department of Social Security and are subject to normal disciplinary procedures under the Public Service Act and Regulations. In addition, the Attorney-General's Department has advised that, unless an authority is statutorily protected, it is liable for the torts of its servants committed in the course of their duty. Where employees, acting in the course of their duty are incompetent and, as a consequence, loss is suffered by a member of the public, it will commonly be found that the act or omission which was seen as incompetent was also tortious. For example, incompetent driving would probably be tortious. In the absence of a denial of liability the negligent giving of erroneous advice is tortious where the advice is given by a person having a duty of care to one who suffers foreseeable damage as a result of reasonably relying on that advice. Many other forms of incompetence would also be tortious, but each case would need to be considered on its own facts. The Commissioner for Employees' Compensation is not statutorily protected against general liability in tort. (5) As at 31 December 1985, 147 applications for review of a determination of the Commissioner were before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal lists all applications for review of the Commissioner's determination for hearing within 28 weeks of the date of application. In practice, however, a matter is often settled by agreement between the parties involved before the date of hearing. In some cases hearings are delayed as a result of difficulties in securing appointments with medical specialists and other expert witnesses. (6) The Commissioner for Employees' Compensation can be sued. (Question No. 981) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 March 1986: (1) Do consultations take place between the appropriate Officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Qantas, concerning the depiction of international boundaries of the flight guide maps published by Qantas in its ``Inflight'' magazine; if so, do the boundaries of Israel currently portrayed by Qantas on its maps represent the policy of the Australian Government. (2) If no consultations are held and/or the boundaries for the state of Israel do not represent those acknowledged by policy of successive Australian Governments, will appropriate steps be taken to ensure that an appropriate depiction is made. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I assume the honourable senator is referring to the March/April 1986 edition of the Qantas magazine Airways. The depiction of Israel on the map in the edition is so small that it is not possible to determine with any accuracy where its boundaries are drawn. The map identifies Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Although there is no legend to the map, Jerusalem is marked in a way which could be taken as indicating that it is the capital of Israel. Consultations do not take place between officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Qantas concerning the depiction of international boundaries or other features on Qantas flight guide maps. I am advised that Qantas' magazine Airways is produced under contract to a private publisher. (2) The boundaries of Israel recognised under Australian Government policy do not include Jerusalem as the capital of Israel or the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. The Australian Government does not recognise the law passed by the Israeli Knesset in July 1980 which declared Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, to be the undivided capital of Israel. Nor does it recognise the annexation of the Golan Heights in 1981. I would also note that the map contains a number of other inaccuracies. In respect of Africa the map identifies the so-called `independent homelands' of Bophuthatswana, Venda, Transkei and Kwazulu, as separate States. Neither Australia nor any other member of the international community accords recognition to the so-called homelands as independent States. The map also needs to reflect the fact that Upper Volta is now called Burkino Faso. I will arrange to have these matters and other minor inaccuracies drawn to the attention of Qantas.