Tuesday, 27 May 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —I have received through His Excellency the Governor-General from the Governor of the State of Victoria a certificate of the choice of Richard Kenneth Robert Alston as a senator to fill the vacancy in the representation of that State caused by the death of Senator Alan Joseph Missen. The certificate was laid on the table and read by the Clerk. Senator Richard Kenneth Robert Alston made and subscribed the oath of allegiance. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ``X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children, from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 21 citizens) and Gietzelt (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Western Australia respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allow- able deductions. That the proposed 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 legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Senator Chaney (from 82 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 numerous provisions exist in industrial legislation and awards which purport to provide special protection to women workers but which have been shown to be detrimental to their achievement of equality in employment. Noting the relevant provision in Article 11 of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women to which Australia is a party your petitioners request that urgent action be taken to ensure that these legal barriers to equality be removed. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reynolds (from 31 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 a consumption tax on the necessities of life as defined by the United Nations-food, clothing, shoes, building materials, books and newspapers-would place an unfair burden on the lower and middle income earners in our community, for which it would be almost impossible to ensure fair compensation in perpetuity. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Reject any legislation which imposes a consumption tax on the necessities of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 50 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any suggestion that family allowances be paid at a flat rate and instead should ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing payments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 56 citizens), Reid (from one citizen) and Richardson (from 1,009 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 62 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: We are opposed to the Parliament imposing a Bill of Rights on the people of Australia and we ask that the Senate reject the Bill entirely. Your petitioners humbly pray: That should the Honourable House decide to pass the Bill in amended form it will retain the amendment applying the legislation to trade unions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 61 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap terminates on 19 October 1986. 2. In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. 3. Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. 4. The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should decide that- 1. The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap not be extended beyond October 1986. 2. Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. 3. Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Macklin (from 75 citizens) and Tate (from 59 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is harmful, dangerous and divisive, the provisions of which are authoritarian and anti-democratic. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 198 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights is a harmful, dangerous, divisive and unnecessary proposal, the provisions of which are dictatorial, harmful and against the true interest of the people of Australia. Your petitioners pray: That the Senate reject the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from eight citizens) and Durack (from 12 citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, the provisions of which are authoritarian and anti-democratic. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 195 citizens), Durack (from 67 citizens) and Robertson (from 82 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That Australia does not need a Bill of Rights as we are protected by the Constitution and Common Law. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 59 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned that the Australian Bill of Rights does nothing to protect the rights of parents to choose to send their children to non-government schools and the rights of individuals and groups to establish educational institutions, which are rights set down in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified by Australia. That the Australian Bill of Rights contains no provision to protect Australians against coercion and discrimination in the work-place to ensure that both unionists and non-unionists should have equal rights to employment opportunities. That the Australian Bill of Rights will give the Federal Government unwarranted powers to override state laws, and that the Human Rights Commission will possess draconian inquisitorial powers which will abrogate the rights of individuals and state and local governments. We your petitioners humbly pray that the Australian Bill of Rights Legislation be opposed in the Senate. by Senator Messner (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we believe our rights are being disregarded in the form and content of the so-called Australian Bill of Rights and the manner in which this legislation has been put forward. 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 seven 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 Bill of Rights Bill and Equal Opportunity Bill: 1. offer nothing more than is already available under law, 2. deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. could cause far more damage than they could possible cure. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Senate should: completely reject the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 129 citizens) and Mason (from 185 citizens). 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 give 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 Archer (from 34 citizens) and Durack (from 320 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate the Government's stated intention to hand over to the Multijulu community ownership of Ayers Rock and Uluru National Park, which have until now belonged to all the people of Australia. We believe that Ayers Rock and the park are the national heritage of Australia and should be retained by the Crown on behalf of all living and future generations of Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate oppose any action that would give ownership of these national treasures to any single group in the community. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress and the South West Africa People's Organisation should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should urge the provision of: 1. Official recognition of A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia. 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the African National Congress and the South West Africa People's Organisation to promote the anti-Apartheid cause. 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid. 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. education departments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from six citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in January 1983 the Latvian born nursing sister Lidija Lasmane-Doronina was arrested by the Soviet authorities and subsequently sentenced to sixteen years in a strict regime enforced labour camp with an additional three years in exile. She had been charged with maintaining contact with Baptists abroad and for being in possession of a copy of the 1975 Helsinki Accords and of having a list of the Soviet Union's transgressions of them. Since Lidija Lasmane- Doronina was only exercising her rights as guaranteed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the Soviet Union is a cosignator, your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the Senate will intercede with the Soviet authorities on her behalf and so secure her early release. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, humbly pray that the parliament act to outlaw the practice of the large petrol companies also controlling petrol retail outlets in competition with independent petrol distributors and retailers whom 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 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia: the petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with the mismanagement of the Victorian Otway forests, and we pray that: The Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant expressions of public concern, eg petitions, by the formation of a committee to represent public requests. by Senator Vallentine (from 76 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: Your petitioners, as in duty bound will humbly pray. That a public inquiry be conducted for the migration of the Chirita family (father) Marin Chirita and (Fiance) Marc Codruta to be allowed into Australia and that the rights of Ion Chirita be recognised in Queensland. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 39 citizens) and Robertson (from 25 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes that Wednesday, 28 May 1986 marks the 25th Anniversary of the foundation of Amnesty International and records its continuing support for Amnesty's efforts in the promotion and protection of human rights. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the chaotic state of Labor Government economic policy and the conflicts amongst Government Ministers and between Ministers, Caucus and factional leaders, on future directions for Australia; and (b) condemns the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for his proven failure in leadership of the nation. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate calls on the Queensland Government to resolve long term discrimination against the more than 1,000 Aborigines on State Aboriginal reserves and immediately introduce award rates of pay plus back pay due to these workers. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, 10 sitting days hence, I shall move: That the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance 1986, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 3 of 1986 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business take precedence of General Business for the remainder of the autumn sittings. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 11 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Extradition (Finland) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 32 and made under the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 11 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance 1986, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 3 of 1986 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 11 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Rates (Amendment) Ordinance 1986, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 2 of 1986 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 11 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Determination, as contained in Defence Determination No. 14 of 1986 and made under section 58 of the Defence Act 1903, be disallowed. Senator COONEY —by leave-The Defence Determination No. 14 of 1986 regulates the payments to armed services personnel of allowances for uniforms. The allowances payable appear to vary in terms of the sex of the officers who receive them. Officers of equal rank and position appear to receive different rates of allowances depending on whether they are men or women. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee is seeking an explanation from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Today is the last day on which I can give protective notice of motion. The notice of motion I have given in relation to the Extradition (Finland) Regulations (Amendment), the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance and the Rates (Amendment) Ordinance are protective notices. The Committee has received letters of explanation from the relevant Ministers but has not yet had the opportunity to consider the letters. It will do so on Thursday. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name for three sitting days hence for the disallowance of Defence Determination No. 8 of 1986. Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Regulations and Ordinances Committee raised with the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) a query concerning the possibility of prejudicial retrospectivity in this determination. The Minister has examined the matter and has assured the Committee that no individual will be prejudiced by the retrospectivity. The Committee thanks the Minister for his advice. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Cost Recovery Arrangements for Interstate Land Transport-Inter-State Commission report-Pursuant to section 10 of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Transport. 2. Regional Commercial Television in Australia: The Next Decade-text of a statement by the Minister for Communications. 3. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to sub-section 30 (1) of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964. 4. Operations of the Registered Health Insurance Organizations-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to sub-section 76A (4) of the National Health Act 1953. 5. A.C.T. Health Authority-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to sub-section 63M (3) of the Audit Act 1901. 6. Women's Business-report of the Aboriginal Women's Task Force. 7. Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Trust-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to sub-sections 10 (3) and 10A (2) of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Act 1953-together with the Auditor-General's report. 8. Advance to the Minister for Finance-statement on expenditure for March 1986. 9. National Survey of Language Learning in Australian Schools 1983-Report. 10. Australian Environment Council, 17th meeting, Norfolk Island, 27 May 1985-draft summary record of proceedings. 11. Council of Nature Conservation Ministers, 14th meeting, Norfolk Island, 30 May 1985-summary record of proceedings. 12. Pharmaceutical Products-IAC report. 13. Central Trades Committees-annual report 1984-85. 14. Vegetables and Vegetables Products-IAC report. 15. Federal Water Assistance Program-Document relating to the Provision of Financial Assistance to New South Wales for the Country Towns Water Supply Improvement Program-pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978. The PRESIDENT —Before I call on Questions without Notice, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the presidential gallery of the Hon. Sir Robert Cotton K.C.M.G., a former distinguished senator for New South Wales and a former Ambassador for Australia to the United States who is accompanying a group of young American political leaders to Canberra. I extend a warm and cordial welcome to former Senator Cotton and his party. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! The PRESIDENT —I also observe that former Senator Lajovic is once again in the chamber, and I also extend to him a cordial welcome. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator CHANEY —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to his reported comment in the Sunday Telegraph in the context of the need for reductions in the Australian lifestyle: In the workforce, wage rises will have to slow down. I ask the Minister whether in saying this he is reflecting Government policy, or is he merely putting forward a personal point of view which does not necessarily have the support of a majority of his Cabinet or Caucus colleagues? I further ask: If it is policy, will the Government change its approach to the current wage and productivity hearings before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and argue in favour of either deferral or greater discounting of the wage claims? Senator BUTTON —I would not believe everything that is attributed to me in the Daily Telegraph. We would be in Question Time until September if we did. I was probably making a general point, which was taken out of context, that we do not, in the forthcoming years, wish to see a situation in Australia such as that which existed in 1981-82 when very substantial wage increases flowed into the system, in the order of 23 per cent in one year, as I recall, or perhaps higher, with very disruptive effects for industry generally and for the economy. I think I was probably trying to make that point and also the point that under the present Government real unit labour costs have been steadily reducing. I really cannot add anything to that. Certainly I would be discouraging any wages explosion such as occurred in 1981 and 1982. Senator Chaney then asked me a question on the basis of the comment which I was supposed to have made. I am not denying that I may have made it; I am just saying that I am not sure of the context in which it was made. The Government, of course, is on public record, as a result of a number of events, as saying that it will be discussing aspects of wage rates, the productivity case and tax cuts with representatives of the business community and the Australian Council of Trade Unions over the next few weeks. It would be wrong, and indeed imprudent and thoughtless, of me to make any suggestions which might in any way prejudice those discussions in the course of Question Time in the Senate, and I do not propose to do so. Senator CHANEY —I have a supplementary question, which follows the suggestion by the Minister that I could not rely on the report in the newspaper from which I quoted. Since Mr Warren Owens reports on what he describes as an exclusive interview with the Minister and the comments attributed to the Minister are shown in direct quotes, I ask the Minister whether he said: We've got a fairly good lifestyle, which is ahead of our earning capacity. There will have to be some reductions in our lifestyle. Governments can bring this about by restraining services. In the workforce, wage rises will have to slow down. Senator BUTTON —I think it is probably correct that I said something like that. I referred to the quotation which Senator Chaney used originally as being out of context and he has now put it in the context of the short paragraph of what was quite a lengthy discussion about the question of Australia living beyond its means. I do not retreat from having said something like that at all, but it was in a wider context than that. Senator ELSTOB —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Government's program for the International Year of Peace. Has the Government given consideration to running a community information program to inform the public on disarmament and arms control processes? In particular, are there any plans to inform the public of Australia's role in disarmament? If so, in what form would such a program be run? Senator GARETH EVANS —Even before the proclamation of 1986 as the International Year of Peace the Government was undertaking a program to inform the Australian community on peace, disarmament and arms control issues in accordance with the Australian Labor Party's platform. This included many statements, both within Parliament and outside it, by Ministers; talks with community groups by the Australian Ambassador for Disarmament and officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs; extensive correspondence with individuals and community groups; ministerial and departmental Press releases; the production of a disarmament news letter and booklets on Australia's role in peace, disarmament, arms control and related issues; articles on these issues; and regular Department of Foreign Affairs publications, such as `Backgrounder' and the `Australian Foreign Affairs Record'. I make it clear that all these activities which have been going on for some time are continuing. In addition to that, for the International Year of Peace, the Government is running a special information program to raise community awareness about peace issues generally, through Press, radio and television advertisements; it is also producing information kits which are available to interested groups and individuals as well as `Peace News', a newsletter designed to provide information about IYP activities. As part of the IYP information program, extra material is available on disarmament and arms control issues and a video is being produced which will be available on loan to community groups to stimulate discussion on these important issues. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that present in the chamber are members of a parliamentary study tour to Australia comprising members of four Pacific Island branches of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, namely, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu and Western Samoa. On behalf of all honourable senators I welcome the delegates to the Senate and trust that the arrangements that have been made for them are satisfactory. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I refer the Minister for Finance to his speech last week to the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce, in which he said that few would deny that a reduction in real wages or more precisely in average living standards was the proper response to the sharp decline in the terms of trade, a large current deficit and a devalued Australian dollar. Noting that the Minister also said that the dispute was about how to achieve this, what is his preferred approach? Does he advocate that there should be some modification to the claims currently before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to help achieve reduced real wages? Senator WALSH —It is implicit in the question that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle is not denying the conclusion, and indeed I do not think anybody who understands what those terms mean would deny the conclusion, that at a time when world price changes for the commodities Australia sells have wiped $3 billion or $4 billion off national income, there is no alternative to either a reduction in average living standards or increasing foreign indebtedness, which of course would be at the expense of the living standards of future generations. As to the preferred approach in dealing with the problem, my preferred approach is the one that will work, whatever that is, whereas the Opposition-particularly the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard-seems to be locked into some ideological straitjacket which has committed the Leader of the Opposition to deregulation of the labour market and a rerun of the same sort of wages explosion we experienced in 1981 and 1982. Senator CROWLEY —Is the Minister for Education aware of any plans by the Commonwealth to rearrange Commonwealth funding to State government and non-government education authorities? Senator RYAN —We have no plans to make any rearrangements in the way in which Commonwealth funds flow to government and non-government schools, because in our judgment, and I believe in the judgment of the education community generally, schools are experiencing an unprecedented level of stability and security in the way that funds flow to them, and the taxpayer can be satisfied that our new measures for accountability justify the expenditure that we are targeting to special areas of need. But I am aware of a document which purports to be a Liberal-National Party education policy document. If the policy were implemented it would not only change the way that Commonwealth funds flow to government and non-government schools but also bring both of those systems into chaos. I table the document. Because the education community will be alarmed and very anxious if this kind of thing gets into the public domain, I do think it is appropriate that I make some comments on the major recommendations of this so-called policy document. I hope that the sensible members of the Opposition will leap to resile from the very stupid and destructive recommendations of this document when they get into the public domain. For example, it is recommended in this document that all Commonwealth grants to government and non-government schools be abolished, that the Commonwealth pull out of funding school systems. Instead, the Liberal and National parties apparently want to provide vouchers-they are now calling them education credits-to parents. The only way that schools could benefit from Commonwealth funding would be if parents were to sign some sort of agreement, some sort of acceptance, that the credits be given to the school and then cashed in. That system, apart from being absolutely chaotic, would of course be extremely expensive to administer. A huge bureaucracy would be necessary to cash in these so-called credits, but the most important thing is that the security and the stability which our funding policies have given government and non-government schools alike would be destroyed. Schools would not know what their income was from one year to the next; they would not be able to plan for the future; they would not be able to employ teachers; and they would not be able to develop curriculum. They would have absolutely no basis for future planning. As well as that, this document talks about the needy but then, as a way of giving extra assistance-- Senator Puplick —Why don't you talk about your rotten policies instead of talking about something you know nothing about? Senator RYAN —I can understand why Senator Puplick is embarrassed by all this. I am sure it is dreadfully embarrassing. In a passing reference to the needy the document says that the Opposition would assist the needy by giving them additional benefit by way of a tax rebate, and that that would assist the neediest families in the community. It is very clear that the Liberal and National parties do not understand that the neediest families in our community are those families whose income is below the level where they are paying taxation. The pensioner families and the single parent families are the neediest families in the community and all they are being offered is a tax rebate which they will never be able to benefit from because they do not pay tax. Senator Walsh remarked about Mr Howard's ideological hang-up on deregulating the labour market. We see the same ideological hang-up in this document in that it purports to talk about freedom of choice. What the Opposition wants to do is to abandon all forms of accountability. It does not believe that schools, parents or anybody else should be accountable for public funds. It believes that public funds to the tune of in excess of $5 billion a year can flow from the Commonwealth into the education system with no accountability. It is quite clear that the poverty of thought and action which the Liberal-National Party coalition has been suffering from over the last three years has sunk to a new low. I would like to make it quite clear to the education community, to government and non-government systems, which would be horrified by this chaotic set of proposals, and to parents, who would be confused and totally undermined in their aspirations for their children's education should any of this come to pass, that the Commonwealth Government has no intention of taking seriously any of the ludicrous and impractical propositions put forward in this document. Senator CROWLEY —I have a supplementary question, Mr President. In the light of that answer, does the document explain whether, in terms of the payment of parents' credits, these payments would go to the father or mother? The PRESIDENT —Order! I rule that the question is an additional question, not a supplementary question. Senator CHIPP —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs tell us when the interdepartmental inquiry into nazi war criminals in Australia will be completed and whether the Australian Broadcasting Corporation allegations which led to this inquiry have been substantiated? Is the Government aware of any Australian files or documents overseas which relate to nazi war crimes or nazi war criminals? Has the Government been asked to release any documents held overseas? What is the Government's response to the allegation that the United States Department of Justice has repeatedly asked for Australian co-operation during investigations into nazi war criminals in America and that, of all the countries asked, Australia is the only country to refuse repeatedly to give assistance? What would the Government need to discover from its interdepartmental inquiry before it would hold a royal commission into this matter? Senator GRIMES —As the Acting Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs mentioned recently in another place, a report has been commissioned from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on this matter. The report, which will draw upon available material held by other agencies, has not yet been finalised. I can say, however, that to date the Department has uncovered no evidence to support allegations that there was a conspiracy to admit, as migrants to Australia, known war criminals, nor has an examination of the records of the Department unearthed any evidence of war criminality of persons who figured prominently in recent Australian media programs. The Department is not aware of any Australian material held overseas which relates to this matter. Australia was a member of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and documents relating to the Commission's work are held in trust by the United Nations. I understand that the United Nations Secretariat is considering whether and how access to these documents may be given. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has no knowledge of any request for Australian co-operation with United States Department of Justice officials in their investigations into war criminals, and I doubt that the allegations referred to by Senator Chipp are in fact valid. Honourable senators should appreciate that this matter must be handled carefully. In particular, we must avoid categorisation of whole groups of Australian citizens and publicised, unsubstantiated allegations affecting named individual Australians. I appreciate that Senator Chipp has avoided such a course but, unfortunately, others in the community have not. For these reasons the Government has not embarked on a royal commission into this matter. It would not agree to one unless there were sound indications that such a commission would uncover evidence which would enable criminal charges to be made against a number of people. Adopting any lesser standard would, I suggest, involve considerable and unnecessary personal and community costs. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. In relation to service pensions and the assets test, could the Minister advise why a pensioner cannot continue to be paid the original, and not reduced, pension rate when an appeal has been lodged with the Department disputing a real estate valuation? In cases where a valuation is proved to be incorrect, is the Minister aware that some pensioners are not fully recompensed because, while their pension adjustments can be backdated, entitlements such as free medical services are not? Senator GIETZELT —All benefits paid for by the Commonwealth to beneficiaries are subject to the laws passed by the Parliament. Therefore, there is a legislative basis for, and a legal obligation on the part of public servants to apply, the regulations and provisions of the law as determined by the Parliament. If it is shown in respect of the assets test that some persons have exceeded the assets limit, they lose their service pension. The consequence of that action is that they have the opportunity to appeal to an appropriate tribunal, as Senator Colston has pointed out. The reason that the pension is not continued is quite simple. It is a legal decision at the time, and the legislation requires that it be implemented accordingly. At the time the decision is implemented it would not be known whether the veteran, in relation to my Department, would appeal. Given that the decision was taken in good faith by the officer dealing with the matter, who would have regard to the available evidence, there would be nothing to suggest to the officer that the veteran would appeal, although under the legislation he has the right to take that course of action. However, if the pension is restored to the level which attracts full medical benefit and treatment, the pensioner may claim to the limit of his entitlement the full medical expenses incurred from the effective date of the restoration of the pension. It is not the case, as Senator Colston suggested, that the beneficiary may lose a benefit. If the beneficiary is successful in an appeal, the person concerned is entitled to full repayment from the effective date on which the pension is restored. Senator MESSNER —Is the Minister for Finance aware that the Treasurer told the House of Representatives yesterday that farmers with their residence in the name of companies would not be subject to the fringe benefits tax, nor would they be taxed on the value of accommodation provided for children working intermittently on the property? What guarantee is there that the Commissioner of Taxation will interpret the legislation in this way, given that it does provide for the tax to apply in both those situations? Further, is there any guarantee that the Commissioner will accept as the real value of accommodation provided by farmers to their employees the amount charged by the employer? If not, does he agree that there is every possibility of a much higher tax slug than the few dollars a week referred to by the Treasurer in his attempt to play down the significance of the tax? Senator WALSH —While I was wandering around Melbourne Airport in the early hours of the morning, after coming over on the night plane from Perth, I glanced at a newspaper and saw something along the lines that Senator Messner has mentioned. I have not spoken to the Treasurer about it and I am, therefore, unable to clarify any of the details that he has asked for. I will refer the question to the Treasurer. Senator McKIERNAN —My question, directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, concerns the staging of marathon races along Australia's national road system. The Minister would be aware of the tragic consequences of an accident several weeks ago near Jugiong, New South Wales, when a motorist was killed and the leading runner in the Sydney-Melbourne ultra marathon was seriously injured. Can the Minister comment on the Government's attitude to this type of race, and detail actions that can be taken to ensure that the public is not endangered by this type of activity? Senator GIETZELT —Senator McKiernan asked a very interesting question which on close examination one would expect to fall within the province of the Minister for Transport but it really does not. Whilst the Minister of the day provides funds for our national highways he loses any responsibility for them because they are matters that come under the jurisdiction of State governments. Therefore, the Minister does not have any jurisdiction over the use of the roads. In the case of the marathon from Sydney, via Canberra, to Melbourne the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, would be responsible while those involved in the marathon passed through the city of Canberra. The problem arises that highways, as distinct from suburban and main roads in built up areas, are capable of being used by traffic and are not designed for pedestrian use. Those highways are designed largely for traffic movement. I think it is in that context that the police have expressed considerable doubts about the use of our highways system for such marathons because it leads to fatalities and injuries such as those referred to by Senator McKiernan. I am sure most honourable senators would share his and my concern for the tragic and unnecessary loss of life and anguish of relatives of the other runners involved in that recent marathon. The difficulty is that there is no national authority that determines the use of roads other than for traffic purposes. I think the police, therefore, would find it necessary to have a national attitude towards such events in the future. I understand that the police have suggested that there should be a ban placed upon the use of our main highway system for the purposes of such marathons. I think that most of us would agree that that would be a very desirable course to take. It places at risk not only the runners but also motorists, as was the case in the incident Senator McKiernan referred to near the border of New South Wales where a motorist lost his life. There is danger all round when people run for considerable periods day and night when the roads are constructed not for that purpose but for fast moving traffic. I suggest that those people involved in the promotion of such marathons should take that into account when they plan those activities in the future. I hope that the police will take a much more definitive position and take steps to ensure the safety of all persons concerned if any such marathons are held in the future. I hope that they be not held because of the tragic accident that happened on that occasion. Senator BROWNHILL —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the Returned Services League on Saturday in which he said that his portfolio would be `right in the firing line' if government spending was to be cut. He told the members of his audience that it was up to them to decide whether spending cuts were the right way to tackle the current account problem or whether there were other more effective and more equitable approaches to the problem. Given that it is more directly the responsibility of the Government of which the Minister is a member to make these choices, does he personally support the alternatives outlined in his speech, namely, reducing demand by further increasing tax revenue, banning offsetting of takeover borrowings against other tax liability and the replacement of volume with value quotas on car imports? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate would be aware that every year Ministers go through the annual travail of having to justify their expenditure before processes of the Cabinet. In this Government it is the Expenditure Review Committee. Every Minister is expected to make savings and that is not a duty that Ministers shirk. They have responsibilities to reduce expenditure where they can in their department. Of course that applies to whichever government is in office. For example, it would be interesting to examine the suggestions that have been made over many years by the Department of Finance and the Department of the Treasury about all of the different departments, including my own. Governments of the day have decided not to accept some of the proposals and recommendations submitted from time to time. I am not going to comment on the specifics that have been raised by the honourable senator except to say that I have said publicly at both RSL conferences and in other places that as far as I am concerned what cuts will be made in my Department's expenditure will be largely associated with its administration and not with taking away benefits from veterans. The PRESIDENT —I inform honourable senators that present in the gallery behind where the Australian Democrats advisers sit is his Excellency Mr Mlynczak, Vice-President of the Council of State of the Polish People's Republic. On behalf of all honourable senators I welcome Mr Mlynczak to the Senate and trust that he has an enjoyable visit to Australia. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator ZAKHAROV —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, relates to a matter I raised in Question Time some weeks ago. Will the Minister advise the Senate whether there has been any resolution of the position of the elderly residents of Euroaville Hostel in Victoria who have been prevented from associating with each other by harsh regulations imposed by the Euroa Shire Council? Senator GRIMES —The matter of the elderly couple-from memory I think one is aged 89 and the other is aged 88-who wish to visit each other in a hostel run by the Euroa Shire Council has been accepted. A committee of the Council has accepted a call from an independent panel to scrap rules which stop two people, such as those mentioned, from visiting each other. A panel was set up to review the matter. It consisted of the Director of the Victorian Council on the Ageing, three clergy and a geriatrician. The panel urged the establishment of clear guidelines for handling any future disputes. My only comment on this matter is that I think it is a pity in this day and age that we have to set up a panel of that type to sit down and investigate whether the rules of an elderly persons hostel should allow a couple aged 88 and 89 to visit each other and close the door when they do so. In the unlikely event that I ever reach the age of 89 I hope that I can find an 88 year old female who is willing to accept me or is willing to come into my room and close the door. Senator Button —You couldn't find one even now. Senator GRIMES —As Senator Button says, I doubt whether I could find anyone now. I just hope that in future this sad case will lead to organisations which run hostels for the elderly having sensible rules-- Senator Chaney —I'd be worried at 49, not 89. Senator GRIMES —Now, now, Senator. I hope that they realise that people at the age of 88 and 89 can be adults in this community. I understand that the two people concerned were in fact recently involved in a road accident. I hope that they are much better. I wish them a speedy recovery and hope that their unfortunate circumstances will make it better for the rest of us when we grow old. Senator LEWIS —My question is to the Minister for Finance. Has the Government agreed to make changes to the fringe benefits tax by reducing the rate of tax to apply to company cars because it is satisfied that the reduction in the rate will save 10,000 to 20,000 jobs in the car industry? Senator WALSH —As I indicated in answer to an earlier question, I have not been in Canberra for very long today and I have not felt very wide awake for most of the time that I have been here. I was asked whether the Government has agreed to a reduction in the rate of the fringe benefits tax. As I understand it, the answer is no. As I understand it, the Government had some discussions with the Australian Democrats yesterday and the matter will be considered by Cabinet tomorrow. I do not know whether the Treasurer has agreed to anything; I cannot answer on his behalf. So far as I am concerned, I do not believe that 10,000 jobs would be lost in the car industry any more than I believed that 80,000 jobs would be lost in the restaurant industry, as some members of the Opposition claimed, or that 10,000 or 14,000 jobs would be lost in the wine industry, according to Senator Messner, if a tax were to be put on wine. The plain fact is that every time some vested interest group is confronted with the possibility of some change in the taxation law, that group goes public and gets an obliging Press to run sensational, grossly exaggerated stories about the alleged disastrous economic ramifications of such a change. The motor vehicle industry has gone through that exercise in the last couple of months. I do not believe it; I do not know whether anybody else does. Senator GILES —My question is to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer the Minister to recent criticism of the level of research and development expenditure by private firms in this country. Do today's Australian Bureau of Statistics figures reveal any improvement; in particular, is there any indication of an improving ratio between private and public expenditure? Senator BUTTON —The issue of research and development in Australia, particularly that performed in the private sector, has been a fairly prominent issue in both political and industrial terms of two or three years. The record of private sector research and development in this country throughout the 1970s and in the first couple of years of the 1980s was nothing short of appalling in terms of international comparison and of the actual real decline in research and development expenditure and activity. This morning the Australian Bureau of Statistics released some figures on research and development carried out by the business sector in 1984-85. Those figures show an increase in expenditure of 43 per cent in constant prices over the 1981-82 period when the last survey was carried out by the Bureau of Statistics. Private sector research and development increased by 51 per cent in that period. There are a number of reasons for that. I suppose the most important are a change of government, a new feeling of confidence in the economy, a degree of continuity and certainty about the direction of the Australian economy, which is a prime factor leading to confidence-- Senator Walters —A banana republic. Senator Chaney —Was it research into bananas? Senator BUTTON —All of these interjections coming from the Opposition border on the peripheral, if not the absurd. That factor is undoubtedly considered in most countries to be the most important ingredient for research and development expenditure. The fact is that there has been a considerable degree of continuity in policy and improvement in outlook for the Australian economy as a result of events in the last two or three years. I believe that is reflected in the 1984-85 figures for research and development. I go on to say that the Government is still not satisfied with the level of research and development because we started from a very poor base internationally. For that reason the Government introduced a tax incentive scheme for research and development to operate from 1 July 1985 in addition to the grants scheme in respect of which legislation is now before the Senate. With the assistance of that scheme it may be possible for Australia to raise its level of research and development to a respectable comparison with other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. The 1984-85 figures are consistent with the Government's expectations. We believe that they will be improved by the tax concession to which I have referred. In answer to the second part of the question I point out that in 1981-82 and 1984-85 a very substantial proportion of business R and D was funded by the Commonwealth Government. That has declined as a percentage and it is believed that it will further decline with the introduction of what is essentially a market-led research and development incentive. Senator HAMER —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether it is a fact that the fundamental cause of our present economic crisis is that our national spending power is seriously out of balance with our international earnings. Is it also a fact that a significant rise in our export earnings in the next few years will follow only a major increase in investment in manufacturing plant and equipment and that there are no signs of such a major increase? Is it also a fact that cuts in government expenditure, State and Federal, though essential could not possibly on their own solve the problems? In this situation is the only immediate economic solution a temporary reduction in national after tax spending power by either significant cutbacks across the board in real earnings or a substantial increase in unemployment? Which alternative would the Government prefer? Senator WALSH —I do not think things are quite as dismal as Senator Hamer suggested. At the beginning of his question he asked what was the fundamental cause of our present economic problem. I do not think that there is any single fundamental cause. There have been a variety of causes over a very long period. The commodities which we traditionally export have suffered from a slow decline in relative prices and over a short period in the last 18 months there has been a massive fall in the relative prices of commodities that Australia exports. That has blown out our current account deficit to quite a serious extent. However, there are other long-standing defects in the Australian economy, particularly in the manufacturing sector, which reflect the enormous structural damage done to the manufacturing sector particularly in the 1960s when Black Jack McEwen was running the country under a succession of spineless Liberal Party Prime Ministers and spineless Liberal Party majority coalition governments. Another point which Senator Hamer raised, which I do not claim to quote verbatim, in essence was whether the only long term solution to the problem is a major restructuring and expansion of either import-competing or exporting Australian manufacturing industry. As I see it, the answer is yes. I see no other answer than that unless we believe that the longer term gradual adverse movement in the terms of trade in commodity exports will be reversed. People can believe whatever they want but I see no reason to believe that that is likely to happen in the near future. The honourable senator also asked about the level of investment in manufacturing. My expectation is that before a more efficient and internationally competitive manufacturing sector could be developed there would need to be a higher level of investment than has been shown in statistics to date. But a good deal more than that is needed including, as I stated in my speech last Thursday which has already been quoted, a change in the attitude of the work force and in the widespread comprador ethos of Australian capitalism. Whatever happens in the short term, I can only draw the attention of the honourable member to the answer that I gave to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's question earlier. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Finance aware that the Queensland Premier is advocating civil disobedience against payment of the fringe benefits tax? If the business community and farmers can be urged to ignore a government charge, does this precedent extend to Queensland workers and pensioners who could be excused for imagining that perhaps this lawlessness indicates that they, too, can disregard payment of high cost State charges on Housing Commission rentals, motor vehicle registrations and electricity? Can the Minister suggest why an affluent Premier would be so miserly as to resist paying his fair share of tax? What action will the Government take against people who disregard the law? Senator WALSH —I was not at all surprised to see that Mr Bjelke-Petersen was advocating the repudiation of the rule of law. It is not the first time he has taken that sort of action. Indeed, it is typical of the double standards he has displayed over many years in public life. I recall another incident almost six years ago when the Premier of Queensland, who, without any doubt, is one of the leading union bashers in Australia, was supporting a miners strike in central Queensland which, again, was aimed at defying the rule of law. So there is at least one prior example of the sort of thing the Queensland Premier has been doing recently. I see the Queensland Premier as personifying the ratbag Right. Senator Chaney —On a point of order: I regard that as offensive language against a member of a State House of Parliament and believe that it should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —I was listening to the Minister carefully. There is no point of order at this stage. Senator WALSH —I was surprised that a leading businessman such as Bob Ansett also lined himself up with that group at the end of last week, a group which already includes Ian McLachlan, Andrew Hay, Des Keegan, Katharine West, and, I regret to say, the Western Australian Liberal Party Leader, Bill Hassell, who last week joined the rest of the ratbag Right in advocating the repudiation of the rule of law and the descent into anarchy. In conclusion, I note with considerable satisfaction and, may I say, admiration-because I know the problems Senator Chaney has to face in that dreadful Western Australian Liberal Party branch to which he belongs-that Senator Chaney was quoted in the Australian of yesterday as saying that business leaders threatening to break the law were `threatening to take a leaf out of the book of the most lawless elements of the trade union movement'. I do not think it could be put better than Senator Chaney put it. I entirely endorse his remarks. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I ask: At some time between May 1986, when Dr Blewett announced the import restrictions on food contaminated by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, and 19 May 1986, the Government moved from restricting all food produce to restricting fresh food only and at the same time dropped all Scandinavian countries from restrictions. On what independent scientific information did the Government change its guidelines or was it as a result simply of assurances from exporting countries? Is it correct that all food screening in Australia is being done by hand and that the Australian Clerical Officers Association has complained about the absence of training and information? Has the Government impounded any foodstuffs and conducted any tests for each of the radioactive elements known to have been emitted from Chernobyl? Is the Government prepared to carry out these independent tests, given the enormous variation in the diligence of countries affected by the Chernobyl fallout? Senator GRIMES —It is not correct to suggest that the Government has moved from imposing restrictions on all foodstuffs from potentially affected areas to restricting only fresh food. The current restrictions still apply to all foodstuffs. However, we do not import fresh food produce from the countries concerned. On 1 May this year the initial step was taken to introduce a precautionary restriction on all foodstuffs being exported from a number of countries believed to have been affected by the incident in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Denmark was removed from this initial list of countries because of information from the Danish authorities that that country had been unaffected by increased radiation levels. Today, that is on 27 May 1986, as a result of independent evaluation by scientists in the Department of Health of data eventually submitted by various countries, the Australian Customs Service was given an updated list of countries of concern. This list does not include the remaining Scandinavian countries. Further information is being sought from those countries where there is still a potential concern about radioactive deposition levels. While the information is being gathered the Customs Service will continue with the plan to hold any suspect consignments for checking. Consignments of foodstuffs arrive in the main by sea and it will be some time yet before potentially affected food will be landed in Australia. As yet there has been no need to impound and test any food. The preferred strategy for dealing with the problem in the future is being developed by a number of departments and agencies in co-operation with the Department of Health. A proposal will be placed before Cabinet in the near future. I will refer that part of the honourable senator's question dealing with the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association to Senator Button, who has the portfolio responsibility for the Customs Service. He will be dealing with the matter raised by that union. In other words, the Department of Health, in conjunction with the Australian Customs Service and other departments, has taken what we believe is reasonable action in this case and will continue to do so. Once again, we have been partially protected from this incident by reason of our distance from the area affected. This has enabled us to set in train restrictions and a program to deal with this potentially contaminated food, which other countries have not had the luxury of doing. I am sure that we will continue to develop our programs in the future to deal with this sort of situation in the efficient manner we have in the past. Senator ROBERTSON —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security comment on allegations expressed in some newspaper editorials that the number of people on unemployment benefits is rising and that this is evidence of major fraud and misuse of Commonwealth Government money? Senator GRIMES —I have seen editorials in a couple of newspapers on the weekend and last Friday stating that the number of people on unemployment benefits was rising due to fraud in this area. In fact, in the past three years the number of people on unemployment benefits has decreased by some 55,000. This compares with the years between April 1977 and April 1983 when the number of people on unemployment benefits rose from 226,000 to 622,000; that is, almost 400,000 people were added to the unemployment roles in that time. While the Government, as has been pointed out and as is well known, has been in office there has been an increase of some 600,000 jobs, some of which have gone to people formerly at home, to new entrants in the job market and to people on other social security payments. The number of people on unemployment benefits has not increased; in fact it has gone down. There are three major indicators of unemployment in this country and those indicators refer to different things. The Department of Social Security figures indicate the actual number of people in receipt of unemployment benefits after income testing and the other eligibility tests; the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures survey the incidence of unemployment from a random survey of people in the community, excluding those who, for instance, work for one or two hours a week or those who have some income; and the Commonwealth Employment Service figures relate to those people who have registered for unemployment and those figures are no longer used. There will always be problems when people accept these statistics at face value without considering how they are derived and what they do and do not include. There will be particular problems when people compare the different series. We know that the availability of part time work has increased and, correspondingly, the incidence of part time work amongst the unemployed has increased. While many of these people would still be eligible for income-tested unemployment benefit, they would not be regarded as unemployed by the ABS surveys. On the other hand, some married women may be listed by the CES and the ABS as unemployed but could be ineligible to receive unemployment benefit because of the income test. There always has been and I suppose there always will be fraud in the unemployment benefit system. This Government has taken actions to decrease the incidence of this fraud but it does not pretend for one moment to have wiped it out. Last financial year $23.7m of overpayments in this area was recovered, compared with $10.5m two years before. The Minister for Social Security and I before him have brought into train several methods to try to cut down the amount of overpayment and fraud. People now get clearer advice and the introduction of direct deposits for social security payments has saved something like $30m in fraud and administrative costs. What we do not want to see in this country is a return to the days when the method considered most satisfactory to detect fraud in this area was the so-called saturation raid. This led to large numbers of people being taken off unemployment benefit, only to see a couple of months later no less than 86 per cent of those people having the unemployment benefit restored by fraud. This is the sort of attitude which led to the so-called Greek conspiracy case, which has cost the taxpayers of this country some $20m so far, has resulted in no one being convicted of fraud, and in the next few weeks- Senator Chaney —There were at least 35 convictions. Senator GRIMES —Not in this case. In the next few weeks this Government will have to deal with paying compensation to all those people that Senator Chaney's Government did nothing about. Senator Chaney —There were 35 convictions. Senator GRIMES —Senator Chaney tells us there were five convictions. Senator Chaney —Thirty-five. Senator GRIMES —He is wrong; there were certainly not 35. The problem is that when the case started Senator Chaney and his colleagues claimed that over 1,000 people would be detected. It is that sort of attitude, that sort of mad blunderbuss approach, that sort of police approach which does nothing, which gains us nothing and which makes the unemployed in this country suffer unnecessarily. Similar attitudes are taken to those on the supporting parents benefit. I would not like to see a return to those days. No one on this side is suggesting that we return to those days. I wish the editorialists in this country would look at our recent history and see what happens when we take that attitude. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the answer given today by Senator Grimes regarding the Government's interdepartmental inquiry into the alleged presence of nazi war criminals in Australia. In particular, I refer to Senator Grimes's statement-I think I quote him correctly-that there is no evidence to support the allegations in the media against certain named individuals. In view of this unequivocal answer and in the light of the damaging allegations against certain individuals and ethnic groups by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in a recent series of programs, I ask: Will the Government invite the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, as a matter of common fairness, to give full publication to the Government's findings? In view of the wholly unsupported statements in the New South Wales Parliament by a Minister, Mr Walker, and Mr Walker's request for a Federal Government inquiry, will the Government inform the New South Wales Government that the Minister's allegations are without substance? Senator BUTTON —I apologise to my colleague Senator Grimes for not having heard all the details of the answer he gave to the earlier question. I am not familiar with the facts of this matter. I know that Senator Sir John Carrick, as a former Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party, would be familiar with the facts because I understand the Liberal Party in New South Wales has experienced this problem a lot over some time. I think the best I can do in order to get an appropriate response to the question is to refer it to the Minister for Communications, insofar as it relates to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and to the Prime Minister, insofar as it relates to the New South Wales Government. I will do that. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister look at the text of the answer by Senator Grimes and see whether, in the light of that answer, he can go further in his answer to both sections of what I have asked in my question? Also, since the Minister referred to certain happenings in the Liberal Party of Australia, will he take note of the answer by Senator Grimes where he suggested that people should be cautious when they talk about where in fact the pimple on the nose may lie, because it may well lie on other benches? Senator BUTTON —I would have thought there should have been more concern about pimples on the tongue in dealing with this issue, but let us leave them as being on the nose. As I understand the answer by Senator Grimes, he was referring to no evidence of war crimes being a finding of the inquiry to which Senator Sir John Carrick referred; that is little to do with the question of whether there was evidence of Nazi Party affiliations, which is a different question. I will certainly examine the text. The point I was trying to make in my answer to Senator Sir John Carrick was that it is not directly within my responsibility-- Senator Sir John Carrick —It is within the Government's responsibility. Senator BUTTON —I understand that and I accepted that. That is why I said I would refer the question to the appropriate Ministers. I do not want to answer that question without examining the documents and without discussions with the appropriate Ministers. I will do that, as I said. Senator VALLENTINE —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. An article on page 17 of the Weekend Australian of 19 April referred to the existence of facilities operated in Australia by the National Security Agency, one of the least known intelligence agencies in the world. The article referred to National Security Agency facilities in Australia at Victoria Barracks, Melbourne; Watsonia-Rockbank, Victoria; Shoal Bay, Northern Territory; Pearce air base in Western Australia; and Cabarlah in Queensland. Is the Minister prepared to confirm the existence of these intelligence facilities in Australia and will he tell us whether there are any more National Security Agency operations at other places in Australia such as the joint facility at Pine Gap? Will he also tell the Senate exactly what the National Security Agency facilities do in Australia and under what agreement they are located here? Senator GARETH EVANS —I know this answer will come as a great disappointment to Senator Vallentine but I can assure her on behalf of the Minister for Defence that there are no National Security Agency facilities in Australia. Senator MacGIBBON —I refer to this notorious document from the Commissioner of Taxation. The PRESIDENT —Order! To whom is the honourable senator addressing his question? Senator MacGIBBON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer and it is with reference to this circular which went to all employers over the signature of the Commissioner of Taxation. Insofar as the second last paragraph takes the position of blatantly canvassing support, not for legislation on the books but for legislation that has not been before the Senate yet, I ask: Was any consultation held between the Treasurer and the Commissioner of Taxation before this letter was written? Secondly, if there was no consultation, what rebuke was administered to the Commissioner of Taxation for such a partisan political action from a public servant? Senator WALSH —The Opposition does not seem to be able to make up its mind on this question-- Senator Ryan —Or on any other. Senator WALSH —As it does not seem to be able to make up its mind on so many other questions, although somebody in the Opposition clearly can make up his mind easily about where to leak confidential documents. There is no problem at all with that. I would have thought that if the Opposition was genuinely concerned about efficient taxation administration it would have welcomed the prior notification from the Commissioner of Taxation to people affected as to what their liabilities, on all reasonable expectations, were likely to be. I am also aware, of course, that the ratbag Right, to which I referred earlier, has seized upon this prior notification by the Commissioner to taxpayers of what the requirements of the law are likely to be to justify the ratbag Right's call for the repudiation of the rule of law. It is a call which has been roundly condemned by Senator Chaney, a call from which he has dissociated himself in the clearest terms, but a call which has been endorsed by the Leader of the Liberal Party in Western Australia, by the Premier of Queensland, by Ian McLachlan and by other assorted members of that contingent that makes up the ratbag Right. I note with great regret-even more regret than I had satisfaction in hearing Senator Chaney's response-that the Leader of the Liberal Party nationally has not had the intestinal fortitude to come out and declare himself on this issue one way or the other. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.16) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This statement from the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) represents the first stage in the sell-out of regional television stations throughout Australia. It is a gutless document, which clearly indicates that in the punch-up between the networks-the networks on this occasion being championed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-and the independent regional operators, on this occasion being supported by Mr Duffy, the Prime Minister's will has prevailed and the future welfare of Australian regional commercial television is to be made entirely subsidiary as a point of argument to the electoral interests of the Australian Labor Party. One can tell from this document the pusillanimous way in which Cabinet, the gang of four now established within the Cabinet, has decided to deal with the future of regional television. If anything reveals the extent to which this is a sell-out on behalf of the networks throughout Australia, it is two particular points which arise from this statement. The first is the gutless backdown on the question of ownership and control. We are told in this statement that the question of ownership and control is to be addressed and an eventual decision is to be made by the Government by the end of October. The timing of that is significant. It means quite clearly that the regional stations are to be kept on hold until the end of October; but, more specifically, that the networks and the big operators-the Packers, the Murdochs and the other media magnates in this country-are to be kept waiting until after this year's Budget to find out whether regional television is to be sacrificed to their interests. They are being told that this year, in August, there will be a Budget brought down by this Government and that if the big media operators criticise this Budget and the Government's financial strategy they are not to expect a favourable decision from the Government on networking regional television and ownership of television stations. If they behave themselves the Government, in October, is likely to bring down a decision that will favour their interests against the interests of the regional television operators. If one needs any further indication of that, I refer honourable senators to page 11 of the Minister's statement where this poor benighted Minister for Communications says, in effect: `Don't come to the Cabinet for protection if you happen to be a regional television station operator threatened by the networks. Go to the Trade Practices Act and try to get some redress under that legislation for the way in which you have now been sold out to networking operations throughout Australia'. This statement represents a clear commitment on the part of the Government to sacrifice the position of regional television operators on the altar of networking for the benefit of those who already own, dominate and control the media, both electronic and print. It represents further a total sell-out as far as regional radio in Australia is concerned. All of the radio operators are told: `Do not come to the Department of Communications for the next 12, 18 or 24 months because we are too busy putting into effect the rort by which those existing television interests of the Packers and the Murdochs and all the rest of them will be given priority'. Regional radio will be made to suffer. There is a whole fiasco of the abandonment of the supplementary licences scheme, the betrayal of people who trusted this Government with the supplementary licence applications, whether they be in the Australian Capital Territory or elsewhere. What has happened is that a Minister for Communications has attempted to defend the position of regional broadcasting. The Prime Minister on behalf of his mates in the networks, allied with the Treasurer, allied with the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who ought to be in the chamber at the moment and, who has some responsibility in this matter, has decided that regional interests and localism are to be abandoned, are to be sacrificed and are to be set at nought in order to preserve the position of the Prime Minister's special media friends. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.21) —This ministerial statement on regional commercial television in Australia is not only grossly delayed by months, even years, but also deliberately ambiguous. The world has known for many months that this Government has been severely divided on what ought to be the correct policy regarding regional communication of radio and television in Australia. The world has known that the conflict has arisen substantially from the satellite and the use of its facilities. The real question was and remains: `Is this decision to be one where a government supports an increased monopoly, or is it to be a decision in which a government extends to the people of Australia increased competition, or at least maintains competition throughout regional Australia?'. The Government has refused to give an unequivocal answer. Everybody knew that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had an aim to increase the monopoly of the media. Everybody knew that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy)-I give him full marks for his courage and his objectivity in this in the face of difficulties and in the face of those in Caucus who have urged otherwise-and indeed the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) took the opposite view, which is the correct view, that there ought to be an increase in competition in the media ownership in Australia, or at the very least the preservation of the terms that now exist. Fundamental to Australia is regional communication. Fundamental is the importance of having a large number of relatively small television and radio stations which can faithfully reflect the regional quality and uniqueness of a particular area. To pose a threat of domination over them as this report does-the report, as Senator Puplick points out, is a report that looks to the future and creates a number of difficulties that have to be dealt with-is in my judgment, especially as the Government is always railing against monopolies, a case of `physician heal thyself'. Here is a chance for a government to do what it talks in rhetoric about doing, and that is looking towards competition, towards the smaller fellow, and looking towards the needs of local people. But that is exactly what is not happening. I believe that this is a very seriously defective report. I believe that it shows the inherent divisions in the Government, not just in terms of factionalism or philosophical divisions, but fundamentally the divisions of those who say: `I will do anything to buy support. The public be damned; the people in the regions be damned. Let us simply see how best we can keep a Labor government in power'. That in itself has never paid off in the past; it has always been disastrous. It will be the same in the future. I repeat: This is a very bad statement. The lack of an unequivocal decision by the Government and the lack of a policy to help competition and to restrain the further growth of monopolies are very bad things for Australia and its people. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(3.26) —I think that some words should be said in defence of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) after the robust attacks upon him by Senator Puplick and-- Senator Puplick —We are in favour of the Minister. It is the boss we criticise. Senator COONEY —The Opposition is in favour of the Minister but it has criticised a statement which he has put forward. If Senator Puplick looks at the strategic goals set out on page 2 of the Minister's statement he will see that it is clearly stated that the strategic goals are, first of all, to provide services in most regional areas comparable with those in capital cities. That is what we call equalisation. What is spoken about in this statement is not equalisation at this stage amongst those who produce and televise programs; it is equalisation of opportunity for those who receive programs. That is what this statement is all about. I cannot see how anybody can tease from this document an indication that there has been a sell-out by this Minister or this Government to monopolies centred in the major cities. In fact, the three commercial television services could be provided cheaply and efficiently throughout Australia using program feeds from the Sydney-Melbourne network. Clearly, that is not being done. The reason the Government has opted not to allow that situation to occur is precisely that it does not want a few big companies completely controlling commercial television. The equalisation policy gives regional stations an opportunity to demonstrate that they can provide diversity of choice in commercial television, and that is what this statement does. It is equalising the opportunity of the receivers to get what programs they will and that is what this paper is all about. Certainly, given the resources that are available and the program that this Government wants to put forward, the Government cannot, as it were, achieve it all overnight. Because the Minister produces a particular paper which talks about equalisation of opportunity and does not mention other matters that honourable senators opposite think should be mentioned, it is not open in my view, if the matter is put fairly, to draw conclusions that in any way this Government and, in particular, this Minister, who has been a magnificent Minister in this portfolio, has in any way sold out-- Senator Coleman —Or neglected. Senator COONEY —Or neglected the country in any way. It has to be remembered that there are opportunities for aggregation amongst the regional television stations to produce an entity which can compete effectively against the major television stations which exist in Sydney and Melbourne. There has been nearly three years of debate on the concept of aggregation. There have been innumerable industry meetings, seminars, public conferences, articles in the Press and parliamentary debates. We are now inviting both licensees and the public to comment on a draft plan which will include a 10-year projection for the proposed markets. This is a paper which can be discussed. The Government will hear what the public and the industry have to say about it and arrangements can be made for this Government and the Minister to lay down plans for the future. I rose simply to defend the Minister against the very vigorous attacks made by Senator Puplick and to say that there is very much another side of the coin which, no doubt, the honourable senator, having heard me, will agree with. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.30) —I believe this statement runs contrary to a number of key Government objectives. Those objectives ostensibly are the encouragement of local production and local employment. In regional areas they have certainly been ignored in the outcome of this report. The levels of employment and localism have been put under severe threat. As a senator coming from a regional area with regional television, I am very concerned about the impact that this will have on regional television and radio. Certainly, there is the threat of domination by the major networks. In fact I think this is implicit in what is proposed. Regional stations have long supported the theory of more choice-but not more choice in, or the domination of, the major networks. We all know that the impact of advertising is such that it essentially flows to the major networks. If the major networks are given access to the regional areas, it will be to the detriment of the local stations which will therefore be forced to reduce the level of locally employed staff in those areas. It will have a major impact on the types of programs that are produced. There will be less emphasis on local sport. There will be less emphasis on local cultural activities. There will be less emphasis on current issues and regional matters. I believe that down the track it will have a detrimental effect that may effectively wipe out and will certainly reduce very considerably the role played by regional television in Australia. There certainly is now the threat of complete domination by the major networks. We already acknowledge that those major networks are controlled by too few people. Whilst it might be desirable to open up the ownership rather considerably, the evidence is that it is falling into fewer hands, and the hands of people who are very strongly political. This is a most unfortunate statement. It indicates the division within the Australian Labor Party and certainly between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). The report is naive at best-- Senator Puplick —Dishonest. Senator WATSON —As Senator Puplick has said, it is certainly quite dishonest in its ultimate aim. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.33) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I rise to talk on this matter because of the deplorable drift of health services throughout Australia. I speak specifically of the situation in my State and note two matters regarding public health which have a very serious effect upon the community and indeed reflect upon the health insurance organisations. First of all, in my State at this moment almost no elective surgery is being done in public hospitals. Indeed, I could virtually say that none is being done. That is a very serious situation. The number of beds in some of the public hospitals is declining by as many as 200. They are simply being closed down. The argument is frequently put that this is because of a lack of nurses or of increased costs. Against this background, the great teaching hospitals are now losing their first rank specialists, their consultants, physicians and surgeons who were and are the front rank of the teachers in those hospitals. They are moving from the public hospitals into the private hospitals because of the decline of services in the public hospitals. In my State the State Government has threatened to put a stop to the expansion of private hospitals. So those needing elective surgery-for hernias, for hysterectomies or similar matters-may have to wait a year or more. The alternative is to go into a private hospital through a private fund. That in itself represents a drastic decline in services. Of particular concern is that the top consultants who are the top teachers are leaving the public hospitals. Of course, against that background, the overall impact of open-ended bulk billing has been to encourage entrepreneurial medicine which is eating up government funds and affecting the deficit. So the general public, and specifically the poorer people, are getting worse service. This Government is supposed to help the poorer people. But in the public hospital system today many of the top consultants have withdrawn their services. Those consultants had given their time freely and without fee to people however low their income. Those consultants are leaving throughout the public system. The result is a decline in services to ordinary people. In addition, the Government has put restrictions upon what shall be funded by way of gap insurance through the registered health insurance organisations so people are not readily able to resort to the services available: Those services that they ought to be able to get are not readily available. I regret that a Government that talks about helping the poor is in fact putting poor people into a far more deprived position than they have ever been in the past. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.37) —In the five minutes that I have available, I too would like to join my colleague Senator Sir John Carrick to comment on the operations of the registered health insurance organisations. It has been noted that Professor Penington has just recently been made an adviser to the Government of Victoria. He accepted that honour on the understanding that he would be able to comment on health matters even if his views did not coincide with those of the Health Commission. He said that the Victorian Government had agreed to this. In a newspaper report of his appointment he states: I personally feel enormous concern about the present state of the public sector health institutions . . . I feel they are facing a very critical period for their future as to whether they will survive. Although I fully acknowledge the role of unions and professional organisations in trying to address industrial and professional issues, I think we have got ourselves into a situation where that is taking precedence over the issues of providing health services to the community of Victoria. But whatever is pointed to in Victoria applies also to the whole of Australia. The Federal Government has created the situation to which Senator Sir John Carrick referred in which waiting lists throughout the whole of Australia are enormous. Health costs are going out of the window. We are all well aware that the cost of health throughout Australia can no longer be coped with. Indeed, this Government has forced these costs to rise through bulk billing. Professor Penington has said that it must be done away with. Senator Grimes in his usual fashion scoffs, as the Government has always done, but the situation remains that in the beginning of this process when the Whitlam Government brought in the scheme, the Australian Medical Association warned that bulk billing was not the answer, that it could not be done for the whole of the community without having costs rise. The AMA would agree that all people on pensions be bulk billed. Professor Penington does not go that far. Indeed, he advises that pensioners should pay, but the AMA does not go as far as that. Senator Grimes —Do you? Senator WALTERS —I certainly do not go that far, as Senator Grimes would have heard if he had been listening. Pensioners should be bulk billed but people who can afford to pay should not be bulk billed. The only reason for the Government's bulk billing policy and its pushing doctors to bulk bill is its socialist philosophy. Once every doctor in Australia bulk bills doctors will be paid by the Government in toto and then they will be socialised. This is the whole philosophy behind this Government's push for bulk billing. In the interim this country will go broke. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has already said that we are a banana republic. We are not just well on the way to it. We have already reached that situation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.42) —I make a very brief comment. I am interested in Senator Walters's definition of socialism. In Tasmania, doctors, including Senator Walters's husband, bulk bill several types of people. They bulk bill pensioners, members of religious professions and other doctors. Apparently it is okay to bulk bill other doctors because it would be too difficult for those doctors to pay the gap-that fee would be difficult for them. Socialism is all right for the doctors and for Senator Walters's friends and relatives but it is not all right for poor people who are not pensioners. Senator Walters failed to define who should be bulk billed, which of those people can afford to pay. When she comes up with a definition with which we can all agree I will perhaps think about going along with Senator Walters's views. She never comes up with any definitions. She goes on with a lot of capitalist rhetoric that we have to put up with in this place. I thought it was worth while to point that out. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Senator Grimes, in his usual fashion, off the top of his head, tells lies in this place. My husband does not bulk bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —I ask you to withdraw that, Senator Walters. Senator WALTERS —I withdraw for you, Mr Acting Deputy President, but Senator Grimes must learn to tell the truth. I ask him to go away, do his homework and then come back and apologise to me. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —On a personal explanation, I happen to be a medical practitioner from Tasmania. I happen to know what the medical practitioners in Tasmania do. If Senator Walters wants a list of some of the other things that go on in Tasmania, I will give them to her. If Senator Walters wants to know about lying, I suggest that she tell this Senate what she instructed her staff to tell people who rang up about the assets test. She instructed them to lie and lie again, and they did. Senator Puplick —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: Will you demand a retraction of that? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — There is no-- Senator Puplick —Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order I have a right to address you. You required Senator Walters to withdraw the imputation that Senator Grimes told lies. I ask that you require Senator Grimes to withdraw the imputation that Senator Walters had instructed people on her behalf to tell lies. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! There is no point of order. Senator Grimes —I am quite happy to withdraw, for you Mr Acting Deputy President, as was Senator Walters. I believe in peace in this place. I withdraw, as she did, just for you. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —On a personal explanation: Senator Grimes on three occasions in this Senate has accused my staff of giving information to my constituents regarding the assets test. My staff have not on any occasion given any advice to anyone on my behalf on how that person should organise his affairs-never in the almost 11 years that I have been in this place. My staff have received instructions that they never do that and, indeed, they never have. Senator Grimes must not make those accusations. Senator Colston —Sit down, you old bag. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I ask Senator Colston to withdraw that remark. Senator Colston —I withdraw for you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Senator Lewis —Come on, Grimes, stop it. Senator GRIMES —I do not normally do this, Senator Lewis, but I am now pointing out to the Senate very carefully what Senator Walters has done. I said that Senator Walters's staff under her instructions gave information about the assets test to constituents which was wrong and, in fact, I used an unparliamentary word. Senator Walters said that her staff have never told constituents how to adjust their affairs on the assets test. I am sure that that is perfectly right. I did not say that. I said that they gave false information about the assets test and the false information was what was in the assets test. I did not say that the honourable senator's staff ever gave people any advice about how to adjust their affairs. It is interesting that Senator Walters carefully made her explanation on those strict and narrow lines. The honourable senator gets up again. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I seek to make a personal explanation because what Senator Grimes is saying is completely wrong. My staff have never given information to any of my constituents on the assets test. If that is the way he instructs his staff, he ought to tell them to behave. I do not instruct my staff that way. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The time for the consideration of papers has expired. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Pursuant to section 17 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 I present the special report No. 2 relating to the Industrial Sugar Mills case involving the Department of Defence. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the report relating to: Construction of a new resource management centre, St Leonards, New South Wales Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-The recommendations and conclusions of the Committee's report are as follows: First, there is a need for operational and support space to be provided at the proposed Telecom Australia resource management centre, St Leonards, to cater for projected growth. Secondly, the extent of the proposed work is justified and will satisfy Telecom Australia's operational and support space requirements at this site until 1995. Thirdly, the number of parking spaces to be provided when the new buildings are completed will comply with local government and staff requirements. Fourthly, the estimated cost of the proposed buildings is $86m at February 1986 prices. Fifthly, the Committee recommends construction of the work in this reference. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I present the 245th report by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts entitled `The Selection and Development of Senior Managers in the Commonwealth Public Service-Response' to report 202 which contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's 202nd report. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator WATSON —by leave-The Committee's 202nd report on the Selection and Development of Senior Managers in the Commonwealth Public Service was tabled in Parliament on 28 October 1982. The objectives of that inquiry were, first, to foster improved selection and development methods for senior public servants; and, secondly, to enhance the productivity and performance of the Departments and agencies of the Commonwealth Public Service by improving the standard of senior management. This report, the 245th from the Committee, sets out the response to its findings in report 202 and its comments on that response. The most significant result from the Committee's point of view was that in December 1983 the Government issued a policy paper entitled `Reforming the Australian Public Service'. The proposed reforms addressed the increasing complexity of government operations and the concomitant need for an increase in managerial ability and accountability. The reforms also reflected the perceived requirement for increased responsiveness by senior public servants to ministerial requirements. Many of the issues and recommendations raised in the 202nd report were addressed in the policy paper and implemented by several pieces of legislation, the most significant being the Public Service Reform Act 1985. The Public Service Reform Act, among other things, provided for the appointment of Secretaries for fixed periods; the establishment of the Senior Executive Service; Senior Executive Service vacancies to be open to applicants from outside the Australian Public Service; greater mobility within the Senior Executive Service; the regular appraisal of work performance and staff development needs; the establishment of a temporary assignment pool; no appeals against promotions to the Senior Executive Service; and provision of improved staff development opportunities on the basis of assessments of the needs of individual officers. A number of other personnel policy initiatives have also been addressed, specifically: The development of equal employment opportunity and industrial democracy initiatives; the establishment of permanent part time employment throughout the APS; and more departmental emphasis and resources to be devoted to the development of internal management development programs and management training for senior staff. Although the Committee is satisfied with the overall response to the 202nd Report, it felt that a number of the recommendations were not responded to adequately and sought further details from the Public Service Board. The Committee recommended that a committee of senior officials be established to identify Second and Third Division officers of exceptional potential on the basis of nominations by departments and suggest assignments to enhance their development. The Public Service Board, whilst accepting the principle of the recommendation, has varied the mechanism by which the objective could be achieved. The Committee sees merit in this varied mechanism and the response indicates the Board's view that the intent of the recommendation will be achieved. Nonetheless, the Committee is disappointed that no special arrangements have yet been put in place to identify officers of exceptional potential for promotion. The Committee notes that a pilot staff appraisal program is to be introduced into six departments by the Public Service Board. This scheme will seek to identify suitable appraisal criteria and it may be that, when fully developed, the proposed scheme could go a long way towards identifying potential promotees. The Committee recommended the establishment of a task force to investigate selection criteria for a written senior staff appraisal scheme which would report within 12 months to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters. The task force has not been established and no report has gone to the appropriate Minister. The development and implementation of the staff appraisal scheme is being undertaken by the Senior Executive Staffing Unit which is also yet to report in any form to the Parliament or the Minister. The Committee therefore regards a report as necessary and requires a progress report from the Public Service Board giving an indication of when completion and implementation of the staff appraisal scheme will take place. The report was a milestone in the Committee's bipartisan approach to the achievement of the goals of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in public administration. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria) —I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee F and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator AULICH(Tasmania) —I table an errata sheet relating to the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. Ordered that the paper be printed. Senator AULICH —The report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card was tabled in this place on 8 May 1986. Due to the extensive nature of the inquiry and the great pressure on the Committee to finalise the report for presentation to the Parliament on that date, some errors were contained in it. For the benefit of honourable senators, I seek to correct these errors before publication of the report through the tabling of this errata sheet. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales) —I table further information received by Estimates Committee A and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Assent to the following Bills reported: Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Bill 1986 Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1986 Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1986 Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Community Employment Amendment Bill 1986 Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Amendment Bill 1986 Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 Trade Practices Revision Bill 1986 Oil Companies (Stock Loss Reimbursement) Bill 1986 Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1986 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1986 Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Meat Chicken Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1986 Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1986 Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Amendment Bill 1986 Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.59) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1986 This Bill will give effect to a further two of the Government's tax reform measures. First, it will provide rules limiting tax deductions for interest incurred in borrowing money to finance rental property investments-so called ``negative gearing''. Secondly, it provides a depreciation allowance of 4 per cent per annum in respect of residential income-producing buildings. The Bill also contains amendments to overcome a decision of the Federal Court that sanctioned arrangements under which future income rights could be disposed of for a non-taxable capital sum. Other provisions contained in it will introduce grouping provisions into the A.C.T. pay-roll tax law to close a loophole which enables employers-by pay-roll splitting-to make multiple use of the exemption available for small pay-rolls. Finally, the Bill will amend the income tax law to facilitate the introduction of a system of self-assessment for taxpayers, give the force of law in Australia to an airline profits agreement with the People's Republic of China and authorise deductions for gifts made to the Australian Sports Aid Foundation. Mr President, I will now outline in more detail the significant measures contained in the Bill. Negative Gearing The Bill will give effect to the Government's decision-explained in the Treasurer's statements of 17 July and 25 September 1985-to limit the income tax deductibility of interest associated with the negative gearing of rental property investments. Negative gearing occurs where, in a particular year, interest on borrowings used to finance rental property investments exceeds net rental income from those investments. Under the existing law, a taxpayer is able to set off that excess against income from other sources and thereby shelter that other income from tax. Mr President, the Government takes the view that the general taxpaying community should not be obliged to effectively subsidise the acquisition of investments by a particular group of taxpayers in this way. Competition for the purchase of residential property between these investors has been reflected in increased prices, to the detriment of ordinary home buyers. The amendments proposed by this Bill are to apply whether the investor is an individual, company, partnership or trustee of a trust. Under them, a limit will be placed on the income tax deduction allowed for interest on borrowings used to finance rental investments made after 17 July 1985. The deduction limit will be an amount equal to the net rental income from those investments. Net rental income is the aggregate of gross rental income from all such investments less related deductions other than building depreciation and interest. Interest in excess of the deduction limit in any year will be carried forward and treated as interest incurred in the next income year. In this way it may be set off against net rental income of that next year or of later years. There is to be no limit on the number of years excess interest may be carried forward. In the case of a partnership, each individual partner will be deemed to have incurred his or her share of the partnership's excess interest. Measures in the Bill will allow a company to transfer excess interest to another company within the same group of companies. Investments in land and buildings will be regarded as rental investments to the extent that the land and buildings are used, or held ready for use, for the purpose of producing rent. Rental investments made after 17 July 1985 will include land and buildings acquired under contracts entered into after that date and, with certain exceptions, buildings and improvements the construction of which commenced after that date. Such investments will also include shares in rental property companies and interests in rental property partnerships and trust estates acquired after 17 July 1985. The Bill provides that a rental property company, partnership or trust estate is one having at least 75 per cent of its net worth on the last day of the year of income in interests in land used, or held ready for use, for rent producing purposes. The interests may be held directly or through interposed companies, partnerships or trusts. The amendments will not apply to investments by employers in residential accommodation leased to employees at or adjacent to a site of mining operations or in or adjacent to a timber felling area, where capital expenditure on that property may be written off under the existing income tax law. Rental property acquired as a beneficiary of a deceased person who acquired the property before 18 July 1985 is also excluded from the scope of the amendments. Interest on a loan replacing borrowings that financed a rental property investment made before 18 July 1985 will generally not be subject to the deduction limit. Where, after 25 September 1985, a change of 50 per cent or more occurs in the beneficial ownership of rental property acquired before 18 July 1985, the amendments will apply. On the other hand, they will generally not apply to a rental investment made after 25 September 1985 if changes in beneficial ownership after that date are less than 50 per cent and the former owner or owners acquired the property before 18 July 1985. It is estimated that this measure will result in a revenue gain of $55 million in 1986-87, $100 million in 1987-88, rising to $195 million in 1990-91 and subsequent years. Residential Income Producing Buildings The income tax law is to be amended by the Bill to allow depreciation deductions in respect of residential buildings used for the purpose of producing assessable income, where construction commenced or commences after 17 July 1985-the date on which the proposal was announced. Extensions, alterations or improvements will similarly qualify for depreciation deductions. This measure is aimed at stimulating new building for rental housing purposes and thus increasing the supply of rental accommodation. Deductions will be available on the same general basis as deductions are presently available in respect of traveller accommodation buildings and non-residential buildings used for income-producing purposes. In broad terms, fixed annual deductions of 4 per cent of capital expenditure on the construction of an eligible building, extension, alteration or improvement will be available to the owner, or in certain circumstances the lessee, over a 25 year period. Mr President, with the introduction of this measure, all new buildings, extensions, alterations and improvements that are used for the purpose of producing assessable income will generally now qualify for depreciation deductions. For residential buildings, special provisions will apply to deny deductions where a building, or any part of a building, is used by the owner, or eligible lessee, or by an associate of them. The cost to revenue of this measure is estimated at $2m in 1986-87 and $7m in 1987-88. Assignment of Rights to Future Income This Bill will give effect to the Government's decision announced on 9 October 1985 to tax, in the hands of the assignor, consideration received for the assignment of rights to future income. The Government's decision was made following the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in a case where rights to receive future interest payable under long-term agreements were assigned to an unrelated finance company for full consideration. The Court upheld the claim by the assignor that the consideration received was a non-taxable capital receipt. The assignee, as a finance company, could offset the consideration paid by it against the assigned interest as it was derived. The Commissioner of Taxation, under special leave granted by the High Court, has appealed against the decision of the Federal Court. In the Government's view, the taxation implications of pre-10 October 1985 arrangements are therefore appropriately a matter for determination by that Court. However, in view of the potentially large amounts of tax involved in arrangements of the kind in question, the Government believes it is proper to amend the income tax law, as a precautionary measure, in relation to such arrangements entered into on or after that date. By this Bill, where a right to receive income is transferred after 9 October 1985 under arm's length and certain non-arm's length arrangements without the transfer to the transferee of the property giving rise to the right, the amount of any consideration received or receivable in respect of the transfer will be taxed in the hands of the transferor. Complementary amendments will modify the existing anti-avoidance provisions relating to the transfer of future income rights for less than 7 years. They will, in relation to post-9 October 1985 assignments, only apply where the parties to the transfer are associated and the consideration (if any) in respect of the transfer is less than full consideration. Where the existing anti-avoidance provisions as modified apply, any consideration for the assignment will not be treated as assessable income. While it is not possible to quantify the saving to the revenue from this proposal, the potential revenue loss in the absence of this change in the law could, if the High Court confirms the efficacy of the arrangements, have amounted to many millions of dollars. A.C.T. Pay-Roll Tax The Bill will also give effect to the Government's decision-announced on 26 July 1985-to close a loophole in the A.C.T. pay-roll tax law. It will do this by the introduction of grouping provisions. Under the A.C.T. pay-roll tax law, tax is payable by employers whose annual taxable wages exceed the prescribed exemption level. This is presently $170,000. Some employers have entered into arrangements under which their business operations are conducted by a number of separate entities, so that their pay-roll is split between these entities. Under these arrangements, liability to pay-roll tax is either avoided totally or at least substantially reduced. Mr President, exploitation of the exemption level is estimated to cost the revenue some $7m annually. The Bill will introduce into the A.C.T. pay-roll tax law provisions, similar to those in force in the States and the Northern Territory, under which certain related employers are to be treated as an employer group for pay-roll tax purposes. Several employers will constitute a group where they are related companies, they share the same employees or they carry on businesses that are under the control of the same person or persons. Where several employers are treated as an employer group, only one member of that group will be entitled to the benefit of any exemption available. That entitlement will be calculated by reference to the wages paid or payable by all members of the employer group. The amendments will apply in relation to wages paid or payable on or after the first day of the month following that in which this Bill receives the Royal Assent. Self-Assessment Other provisions in this Bill will smooth the way for the introduction of a system of ``self-assessment'' of income tax returns. The decision to introduce this system was taken following a detailed examination by the Commissioner of Taxation of existing income tax assessing methods. The Government has endorsed the Commissioner's decision and agreed to some technical changes in the income tax law to facilitate introduction of the system from 1 July. Under self-assessment the Commissioner's officers will generally not subject income tax returns to the same degree of technical scrutiny that has existed in the past before a notice of assessment is issued. Self-assessment will mean that, after assessments have issued, there will be more audits and more checking and verifying of information in returns against data obtained from external sources. Taxpayers who, when their return is processed or later, are found to have made false or misleading statements in their returns will face heavy penalties. Measures, passed by the Parliament in 1984, are relevant in this regard. The more limited initial checking of returns that will occur under self-assessment could mean that the assessment that is made on the basis of a taxpayer's return produces a tax bill that is higher or lower than what the law really authorises. To remedy this, the Commissioner's power to amend assessments is to be widened. The new power to amend to correct an error of law will enable a taxpayer's liability to be either increased or decreased, generally within a period of three years after the due date for the payment of tax under the assessment. Where the Commissioner detects an error that was against the taxpayer, the taxpayer will be paid interest when the original mistake is corrected. To compensate the revenue where tax was underpaid as a result of an error in a taxpayer's favour, the Bill also contains provision for the payment of interest to the Commonwealth. Where an amended assessment increasing a taxpayer's liability occurs because the taxpayer made a false or misleading statement in his or her return then, rather than interest, the penalties provided for under existing law may apply. Interest will be calculated from the date on which the underpaid tax should have been paid to the date on which the amended assessment is made. The rate of interest will be the same as that applicable from time to time under the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Act 1983. The present rate is 14.026 per cent per annum. These amendments are to apply to amended assessments made on or after 1 July 1986 in respect of the 1985-86 year and all subsequent years of income. Gifts The gift provisions of the income tax law will be amended by the Bill to give effect to the Government's announcement of 10 December 1985 to make gifts to the Australian Sports Aid Foundation tax deductible. Deductions will be allowable for gifts the value of which is $2 or more made on or after 18 February 1986-that being the date of the foundation's incorporation. The cost to revenue of this measure is estimated at up to $5 million in a full financial year. Airline Profits Agreement with the People's Republic of China Finally, Mr President, the Bill will provide legislative authority for the entry into force of a taxation agreement (limited to the taxation of profits derived from international air transport) with the People's Republic of China. Details of the agreement were announced when it was signed in Beijing on 22 November 1985, and copies were made available to the public at that time. By the agreement, Australia and China are to exempt from their respective income taxes profits derived from international air transport by the other country's international airline. The practical effect of the agreement is that Australia will have the sole right to tax Chinese source profits from the international airline operations of Qantas, while China will have the same right with respect to Australian source profits from international operations of China's Airline CAAC. Upon entering into force, the agreement will have effect in both countries in relation to profits and revenues derived on or after 1 July 1984. Although this agreement with China is restricted to international airline profits, I advise honourable senators that China is included in the Government's current negotiating program for comprehensive taxation agreements. The agreement with China is expected to have a negligible impact on revenue. An explanatory memorandum comprehensively explaining the features of this Bill, and an associated Bill that I will introduce shortly, is being circulated for the information of honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. TAXATION (INTEREST ON UNDERPAYMENTS) BILL 1986 Mr President, this Bill will formally impose the interest charge payable under section 170aa of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which it is proposed be inserted in that Act by the Bill I have just introduced. Honourable senators will be aware that, under section 55 of the Australian constitution, laws imposing taxation may only deal with the imposition of taxation and cannot contain any extraneous matters. Because interest payable under proposed section 170aa of the Income Tax Assessment Act is likely to be regarded as a tax, this Bill is designed to ensure that constitutional requirements are met. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stage, for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole, and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.01) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- FRINGE BENEFITS TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1986 When the Government embarked on its critical task of reforming the Australian taxation system, it first set out the major objectives for worthwhile and enduring reform, and then painstakingly developed a detailed program for achieving those results. One goal that emerged clearly was the need to improve the fairness of the system for the majority of Australians by pursuing with resolve our policy of rooting out tax avoidance and evasion practices that had been found to exist on a large scale. These had seriously eroded public confidence in the integrity of the tax system and had caused a disproportionate shouldering of the revenue burden by honest citizens. An associated goal was to lighten substantially the weight of high marginal tax rates which were operating to undermine the income tax base. Those related aims-indeed the whole thrust of the tax reform package-was about improving equity and not about increasing government revenues. This Bill introduces another major element of the tax reform package, a system for effectively taxing remuneration obtained as fringe benefits which has been escaping the tax net. By and large the measures that the Bill contains follow closely the proposals for dealing with fringe benefits that were contained in the 19 September 1985 statement. In outlining those measures now I observe that the Government has readily entered into consultation with employer representatives, trade unions and other interested groups. It has been ready to listen and respond to reasoned argument as to whether particular aspects of its proposal should be modified. The willingness of the Government to entertain responsible dialogue in this area has been a feature of its approach. But our principal goals have been kept unswervingly in sight. Major reform necessarily means that relative shares of the tax burden will shift and other adjustments will occur as a consequence. The process cannot be painless for all. It must be expected that some will disagree with measures affecting them. We cannot allow that small measure of disagreement to defeat our objective of providing a fairer and better deal for Australian taxpayers. Before turning to the main features of the fringe benefits tax, I remind honourable senators of the background. There has over the years been a very strong movement towards the remuneration of employees-especially higher income earners-by fringe benefits packages which allowed income tax to be avoided on substantial parts of the overall remuneration. So called tax-free perks came to dominate salary package negotiations and packages were openly advertised in the market place. Increasingly innovative deals were emerging particularly after the demise of the ``paper'' tax avoidance schemes in the early 1980's. All of this was aggravated by the inability of the existing income tax system to exact tax effectively from recipients of fringe benefits. Several factors contributed to this. First there were deficiencies in the income tax law itself. A major one was that it called for case by case subjective judgments to be made as to the value of fringe benefits in the hands of individual employees. That kind of requirement is simply incompatible with the efficient assessment and collection of tax on a mass scale and invites disputation. There were also technical defects creating gaps in coverage, for example, when benefits were given to family members and associates rather than to employees directly. A decided lack of enthusiasm to tackle such problems over the years by previous governments inhibited administrative initiatives in this area, encouraged the growth of fringe benefits and heightened perceptions that there was a right to enjoy perks tax-free once they were negotiated. This was a situation that the Government could not leave unchallenged if tax reform was to have any meaning. Plan of the Tax Fringe benefits tax will be imposed on employers on the taxable value of fringe benefits that they provide to their employees. There is no practical alternative to that course. It will commence to apply from 1 July 1986 and the tax will be payable in quarterly instalments, the first of which will be due by 28 October 1986 in relation to fringe benefits provided in the quarter to 30 September 1986. The system will be one of self-assessment which means that a responsibility will be placed on employers to lodge an annual return and, when doing so, to calculate the amount of fringe benefits tax payable. To avoid imposing a further concentration on the workloads of employers, tax agents and the tax administration in peak processing periods, the standard tax year for fringe benefits tax purposes will be the year from 1 April to 31 March rather than the financial year. As the tax is to commence on 1 July 1986, transitional provisions will enable the first year of tax to apply for the 9 months period to 31 March 1987, with the second year of tax being from 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988. For the transitional ``year'', tax will be imposed at the rate of 46 cents in the dollar on the taxable value of fringe benefits subject to the tax. Thereafter the rate will be 49 cents which equates with both the maximum marginal rate of income tax proposed to apply from 1 July 1987 and the company tax rate to apply to corporate incomes derived in 1987-88. Once the tax is fully operational, after the initial transitional period, three quarterly instalments of tax will be payable in each year for the quarters ending 30 June, 30 September and 31 December with payments falling due on the twenty-eighth day of the succeeding month in each case. The quarterly instalments will normally be based on the tax payable for the previous year. Employers will, however, be permitted to estimate their annual liability for the purpose of varying their quarterly instalments where the level of benefits changes from year to year, in much the way that provisional tax may be varied under the income tax law. For the transitional 9 months assessment period two quarterly instalments will be payable, for the quarters ending 30 September and 31 December 1986. As there will be no previous year liability on which those instalments could be based, each will be calculated and paid by reference to the actual levels of benefits provided to employees in the respective quarter periods. The Bill contains legislative directions as to how this is to be done. Taxable Fringe Benefits As the purpose of the tax is to remove a serious gap in the income tax law and ensure that all forms of remuneration paid to employees bear a fair measure of tax, fringe benefits tax is pitched at all employers-both taxable employers and exempt employers under the income tax law. It will apply to Commonwealth, State and Local Governments and their agencies. An exception-but a tightly drawn one-will apply in the case of members of religious bodies. Consistent with this approach, the tax will have a wide sweep as to the kinds of fringe benefits it will cover. As stated in the 19 September 1985 announcement, the types of benefits to be taxed include employer-provided motor vehicles, free or low-interest loans, residential accommodation, board and excessive living-away-from-home allowances, goods and services sold at or below cost, or provided free, and expenses paid on behalf of employees. In fact, unless specifically exempted, any form of employee fringe benefit will come within the new rules. Honourable senators will recall some exclusions that have been announced previously. Fringe benefits tax will not apply to benefits associated with contributions to superannuation funds and employee share acquisition plans. The income tax law already deals with these. Generally excluded also are staff canteens and free or discounted use of commuter transport systems by their employees. There will be no tax on the use of child care facilities and recreational facilities on an employer's premises. Where an employer contributes to the establishment of a community child care centre on a joint funding basis with the Commonwealth under the Children's Services Program, the benefit to employees of access to the centre through that contribution will also be exempt from fringe benefits tax. As a practical matter, there will be no tax on goods consumed at work nor on the first $200 in value in a year of free or discounted goods or services provided to an employee, including discounted air fares to airline and travel agency employees. Some further exemptions not announced earlier are to be given. I draw attention to them now- Low interest loans granted to veterans under the Defence Service Homes Act; Consistent with our international obligations, benefits provided to employees by organisations that are immune from income tax by virtue of the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, the Consular Privileges and Immunities Act or the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act, or under international agreements; and Live-in accommodation of employees who care for disabled people or disadvantaged children or other persons in a house, unit or hostel operated by a government body, religious body or other non-profit organisation. The exemption referred to earlier that is proposed for religious institutions will only apply to benefits that are given to clergy and other members of a religious order. To ensure equity between employees in like occupations, benefits will be taxable if they are given mainly in respect of secular or commercial activities and not religious duties. Valuation of Benefits The taxable values of the various fringe benefit categories will be determined under rules set out in the Bill. For the most part the valuation rules follow closely details contained in the announcement of 19 September 1985. There are some respects in which the initial proposals are to be adjusted or extended following consideration of representations. Motor Vehicles For employer-provided cars made available for personal use of employees, two alternative methods of valuation were specified. One values the benefit as the actual private use proportion of the costs of operating the vehicles and requires detailed record-keeping. The second is an arbitrary formula which may be chosen by those preferring not to document fully their business and private travel. Under this method the taxable value is a specified percentage of the original purchase price of the vehicle to the employer or, for a leased vehicle, the market value when the lease commences. Under each of these methods the cost price or market value will be adjusted upwards to reflect any sales tax or customs duty exemptions that applied when the car was acquired by the employer. This adjustment will place on an equal footing for fringe benefits tax cars provided by all classes of employers, including governments, whether or not they receive concessional treatment for other purposes. For car benefits valued under the arbitrary formula the cost price or market value base for calculating the taxable value will be discounted by one-third if the car is held for more than four years. This recognises that the right to use older vehicles is somewhat less valuable than the use of a newer one. Before moving away from motor vehicles, I refer to concerns expressed to the Government about the impact of fringe benefits tax on the motor vehicle industry. We have listened carefully to those representations and we have tested and analysed the material offered in support of them. It is the Government's considered view that the new tax rules are quite fair-indeed the arbitrary formula is somewhat generous-and will not produce distortions in the car market. That is not to say that the costs of fringe benefits tax will have no impact on car sales. We judge, however, that loss of unit sales due to the tax will fall within tolerable limits for the industry and certainly will not impact in a discriminatory manner. We cannot let short-term adjustment considerations stand in the way of essential and lasting closure of a notorious tax loop-hole. The industry need not rely on unfair tax advantages in the context of the stronger economy, improved competitiveness and the further advantages provided by the car plan which have derived from the policies of the Government. Remote Areas It was previously announced that the taxable value of free or subsidised rental accommodation would be discounted by one-third if the housing qualified for the existing remote area housing concession available under the income tax law. We have decided to increase the discount to 40 per cent. This concession is in recognition of the cost disadvantages of constructing accommodation in such areas. It has also been decided to make available a statutory formula for valuing remote housing benefits as an alternative to basing it on 60 per cent of the market value. Under the alternative, an employer will be able to elect to have the taxable value of employee housing taken as a specified proportion of average adult male full-time earnings in the mining industry. That proportion will be the dwelling rent component of private consumption expenditure as published in the Australian National Accounts by the Australian Statistician. This arbitrary method will obviate the need to determine market values in remote areas where the local housing market can be subject to abnormal supply and demand factors. Where an employer adopts this method it will apply to all remote area housing provided to employees of that firm. The Bill makes further allowances for the situation of remotely located employment. One of these is to discount by half the value of holiday travel subsidised or paid for by employers where, under an employment agreement or award, the employees are entitled to be assisted with travel to the location where they were engaged or to the nearest capital city. For all these purposes the tests of remoteness under the income tax law are to be modified. A location will be remote if it is more than 40 kilometres from a population centre of 14,000 or more and beyond 100 kilometres of a population centre of 130,000 or more, the populations being as established by the 1981 Census. The figure of 14,000 is an increase on the 12,000 figure under the income tax concession and ensures that there is no detriment to employers in areas that have increased in population since the previous Census. In addition, if a location is in Zone A or Zone B it will be treated as remote for fringe benefits tax if it is more than 40 kilometres from a population centre of 28,000 rather than 14,000. Again this recognises the costs of providing reasonable working conditions, including recreation assistance, in less congenial areas. Airline Transport Employees of airlines and travel agencies may fly on private travel at greatly reduced fares under arrangements applying within the travel industry. Under these, the travel rights of the employees are available on a stand-by basis only after seating is allocated to members of the public, including those travel- ling on commercial stand-by fares. In valuing the resulting fringe benefit, due allowance is to be made for the restrictions attaching to this kind of travel right. Where the travel is on a scheduled service of a domestic carrier a discount of 50 per cent will be applied to the standard economy fare. For stand-by travel on an international route this discount will generally be applied to the lowest fare for the route published in Australia for individual bookings during the tax year. In each case the generally applicable concession for staff discounting of goods and services will also be extended. That is, the taxable value will be reduced to 75 per cent of the benefit. Tax will be payable by the employer whether or not the employer is the actual carrier. I could take up the time of the Senate in discussing other aspects of this Bill but do not propose to do so. The main features of the new tax have been spelled out and a detailed explanatory memorandum is being made available. This is an assessment Bill for a new tax and therefore contains all the usual machinery provisions of a tax law for such things as collection and recovery procedures, appeal rights and the necessary administrative arrangements. Its design features are directed at making the operation of the tax as readily manageable as possible for employers. The Bill also contains all the rules necessary to identify and value the wide range of fringe benefits it deals with. All of this means that this is a very substantial Bill both in content and importance. It represents another major step towards completing our tax reform program. The revenue gain from the imposition of fringe benefits tax is estimated at $330m in 1986-87, $540m in 1987-88 and $625m in 1988-89. I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the Senate. FRINGE BENEFITS TAX BILL 1986 The assessment Bill which I have just introduced will establish the legislative framework for identifying and determining the taxable values of the various kinds of fringe benefits that are to attract tax in the hands of employers who provide fringe benefits to their employees. This Bill-the Fringe Benefits Tax Bill 1986-will formally impose that tax and declare the tax rate. Fringe benefits tax is to commence to operate from 1 July 1986 and as a transitional measure, as has been explained earlier, the first year of tax for assessment purposes will be the nine month period from 1 July 1986 to 31 March 1987. From then on, the standard fringe benefits tax year will be the twelve months ending on 31 March each year. By this Bill, the rate of tax in the transitional year is set at 46 per cent. That is, tax at that rate will be imposed on the total taxable values of fringe benefits provided in the period 1 July 1986 to 31 March 1987. For each subsequent taxable year from 1 April to 31 March the tax rate is to be 49 per cent. Fringe benefits tax, as has been made clear, is to be payable by all employers including employers such as Commonwealth, State, territory and local governments and their respective agencies who are not generally subject to taxes. This wide-reaching application is because fringe benefits tax aims to ensure that all forms of employee remuneration bear a reasonable share of tax. This cannot be achieved unless the tax has universal coverage. There have been suggestions from some quarters that to tax State Governments in this way might breach the constitutional requirements that Federal taxes not be imposed on the property of a State. The assessment Bill has been carefully prepared so as to ensure that no such conclusion is open. The Government considers that nothing in that Bill could fairly be represented as a tax on State property. What is being taxed is the value of benefits that are given to employees as an effective part of the employees' remuneration. Nonetheless, lest there be the slightest doubt in the matter, the Fringe Benefits Tax Bill ensures that no adverse finding could affect the validity of the Bill to tax other employers. I commend the Bill to the Senate. FRINGE BENEFITS TAX (APPLICATION TO THE COMMONWEALTH) BILL 1986 The Treasurer made clear when announcing the fringe benefits tax proposals on 19 September last that the measures to be taken would equate the treatment of fringe benefits for Commonwealth public servants with that to apply in the private sector. That approach is to apply in relation to all employees and officeholders under the Commonwealth umbrella including, for example, occupation within the Parliament and the judiciary. This Bill will specify how this is to be done. Broadly, departments and authorities of the Commonwealth will be subject to fringe benefits tax as if they were separate corporate employers. As such, the various departments and authorities will face the same obligations as other employers to lodge annual fringe benefits tax returns and to pay the tax, including quarterly instalments. The Government will be at pains to ensure that agencies fully bear the burden of the tax through the annual appropriation procedures and other measures. Consistent with this, the Bill authorises the Minister for Finance to give formal and binding directions in relation to the transfer of money within the public account. I commend the Bill to the Senate. FRINGE BENEFITS TAX (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 1986 The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill which I introduced a little earlier contains a comprehensive code for the taxing of employers on the value of fringe benefits that they provide to their employees. Where fringe benefits are taxed in that way, or where they are to be specifically exempted from fringe benefits tax under the earlier Bill, it is to be made clear that they are not to be treated as assessable income in the hands of employees for income tax purposes. The Fringe Benefits Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act to ensure this. It will also amend that Act to repeal measures for the concessional valuation of residential accommodation supplied to employees in remote localities which are now to be dealt with under fringe benefits tax legislation. Another amendment sees to it that income tax deductions are not available to employers for amounts paid as fringe benefits tax. Without that measure the fringe benefits tax rate would be effectively reduced for income tax paying employers. Several other consequential changes to the income tax law arise due to fringe benefits tax rules relating to board, live-away-from-home allowances and reimbursements of employees' car expenses. These are detailed in the explanatory memorandum. Finally, the scope of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980 is to be extended so that it will apply to any schemes for the fraudulent evasion of fringe benefits tax as it does to other taxes of the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.02) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- TOBACCO CHARGE (No. 1) AMENDMENT BILL 1986 Mr President, this is the first of three Bills to amend the Tobacco Charge Acts (Nos. 1-3) 1955 to restore, with effect on and from 1 April 1986, the rate of charge that applied immediately prior to that date. This Bill will amend the Tobacco Charge Act (No. 1), which imposes tobacco charge on the sale of Australian tobacco leaf to manufacturers of tobacco products for smoking. Regulations under the Rural Industries Research Act 1985 effective from 1 April 1986 brought into operation amendments of the Tobacco Charge Acts that were enacted last year. Those amendments repealed the rate of charge specified for the purposes of those Acts-3.5 cents per kilogram of tobacco leaf-and provided for the rate to be prescribed by regulations made under the Tobacco Charge Act (No. 1). However, no such regulations have been made, with the result that since 1 April 1986 there has been no rate of tobacco charge prescribed. Regulations retrospective to 1 April 1986 cannot now be made. Accordingly, it is proposed by this Bill to restore the previous rate of tobacco charge-3.5 cents per kilogram of tobacco leaf-to apply to chargeable sales made on or after 1 April 1986. As total tobacco charge collections are used to finance tobacco research-now administered under the Rural Industries Research Act-and to finance the operations of the Australian Tobacco Board, the amendments will have no net effect on revenue. However, as collections for April 1986 are estimated to be some $300,000, the Government will be seeking early passage of the Bills to ensure that there is minimal interruption to collections of the Tobacco Charge during 1985-86. Mr President, an explanatory memorandum containing a more detailed explanation of the three Bills is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend this Bill to the Senate. TOBACCO CHARGE (No. 2) AMENDMENT BILL 1986 This is the second of the three Bills that I mentioned when introducing the Tobacco Charge (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1986. The Bill will amend the Tobacco Charge Act (No. 2) 1955 to restore, in respect of purchases of Australian tobacco leaf by manufacturers of tobacco products on or after 1 April 1986, the rate of tobacco charge that applied immediately prior to that date. Apart from the nature of the transactions that are subject to the charge, the Bill is to the same effect as the first Bill in this package. I commend the Bill to the Senate. TOBACCO CHARGE (No. 3) AMENDMENT BILL 1986 Mr President, I come to the last of the three Tobacco Charge Amendment Bills. This Bill is to the same effect as the previous two Bills. It will restore the rate of tobacco charge payable in respect of tobacco grown by a manufacturer of tobacco products and appropriated, on or after 1 April 1986, by that manufacturer for manufacturing purposes. I also commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.05) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- STATES GRANTS (EDUCATION ASSISTANCE-PARTICIPATION AND EQUITY) AMENDMENT BILL 1986 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983 to supplement for cost increases the grants available to government and non-government education authorities in the States and the Northern Territory to conduct projects and programs under the Participation and Equity Program in the years 1986 and 1987. The cost supplementation proposed is in accord with the Government's undertaking to provide retrospective cost supplementation for this program. The adjustments are consistent with those being made to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) and States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bills which are also before the House today. The financial impact of this Bill will be to provide an additional $0.823 million in each of 1986 and 1987. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1986 The primary purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984 to supplement grants to government and non-government schools in the States and Northern Territory, in line with the Government's policy of providing retrospective cost supplementation for the Commonwealth's programs for schools. These arrangements provide school systems and authorities with the confidence to plan ahead in the knowledge that grants will be maintained in real terms. The total amount of supplementation to be provided by this Bill is $23 million in 1986, $10 million in 1987 and $11 million in 1988. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1986 The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 provides grants to the States and the Northern Territory for financial assistance to universities and colleges of advanced education for the 1985-87 triennium, and for technical and further education for 1985 and 1986. The purpose of this Bill is to supplement these grants in accordance with the Government's agreed procedures to make adjustments for cost increases. The total amount of supplementation to be provided by this Bill is $98.43 million, comprising $66.67 million in 1986 and $31.76 million in 1987. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The President has received the following message: Message No. 337 Mr President, The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day: That, in accordance with section 4 of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act 1986- (a) the Honourable Sir George Hermann Lush, the Honourable Sir Richard Arthur Blackburn and the Honourable William Andrew Wells be appointed members of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, and (b) the Honourable Sir George Hermann Lush be appointed the Presiding Member. JOAN CHILD Speaker Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-proposed: That, in accordance with section 4 of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act 1986- (a) the Honourable Sir George Hermann Lush, the Honourable Sir Richard Arthur Blackburn and the Honourable William Andrew Wells be appointed members of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, and (b) the Honourable Sir George Hermann Lush be appointed the Presiding Member. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.07) —The Opposition supports the motion. We believe that the names which have been proposed as the Parliamentary Commissioners of Inquiry are appropriate for the task and we trust that the commissioners will be able to proceed with all due expedition in their difficult task. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President has received the following message: Message No. 349 Mr President, The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, Mr Downer, a Member of the House of Representatives, has been appointed a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in the place of Mr Punch, discharged. JOAN CHILD Speaker Consideration resumed from 8 May. Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 8 May. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: (1) That clauses 1 to 6 be postponed till after consideration of the Schedule. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered, the votes in the Schedule be considered in the same groupings and order as the departmental estimates referred to Estimates committees A, B, C, D, E and F respectively, as follows: Division Nos. Department Amount $ Group A 380-386 Industry, Technology and Commerce... 9 854 000 500-519 Prime Minister and Cabinet... 5 735 000 640-644 Trade... 86 240 000 540-554 Science... 12 890 000 Group B 220 Community Services... 26 201 000 360-364 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs... 5 420 000 560 Social Security... 18 628 000 325-327 Health... 17 539 000 Group C 304-305 Finance... 3 606 000 287-291 Employment and Industrial Relations... 15 388 000 670-678 Treasury... 24 847 000 490-497 Primary Industry... 3 298 000 200-202 Communications... 34 966 000 Group D 270-284 Education... 30 983 000 352-355 Housing and Construction... 11 591 000 590-593 Sport, Recreation and Tourism... 2 145 000 130-149, 620 Arts, Heritage and Environment... 5 092 000 120 Aboriginal Affairs... 2 625 000 Group E 520-525 Resources and Energy... 2 408 000 165-191 Attorney-General's... 23 568 000 575-583 Special Minister of State... 18 365 000 315-319 Foreign Affairs... 20 527 000 230-244 Defence... 290 651 000 Group F 690-694 Veterans' Affairs... 34 217 000 664-667 Transport... 5 199 000 193 Aviation... 7 560 000 270-272, 329, 352, 620-628 Territories... 16 830 000 400-402 Local Government and Administrative Services... 19 253 000 (3) That leave be given to senators to move motions expressing opinions or making recommendations based on the reports of the Estimates committees; that such motions be moved when the appropriate vote is under consideration; that where more than one motion is proposed in relation to a particular vote, the motions may be debated together, but in all cases a motion or motions shall be disposed of before the Question is put on the vote before the Chair, and that any resolutions be reported when the Chairman makes his report to the President at the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the Whole. GROUP A Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce Proposed expenditure, $9,854,000 Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $5,735,000 Department of Trade Proposed expenditure, $86,240,000 Department of Science Proposed expenditure, $12,890,000 Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.12) —I wish to speak on the expenditure of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce against the background of the recent adverse trade deficit. I do so also because I read in the paper a report quoting the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Simon Crean. The report quoted him as saying that there is no industry policy. I do not say that in any vexatious way; I do not say it to score points at all. I want to look at it against the background of what has happened in recent weeks and the background of these appropriations. In recent weeks there has been an adverse balance of trade of a very large order-$1.4 billion. That has occurred because of a number of factors. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is fond of telling us one aspect of this. He is fond of saying that because the prices of our exports-primarily primary products-have fallen, we have a loss of money on that side of the balance sheet. What he does not tell us is that because we are uncompetitive with the outside world, imports flood into this country and our manufacturing and service industries are incapable of competing with them. So on the adverse side of the sheet we are being flooded by imports. It has been said, of course, that the J-curve would correct this, that somehow or other with an extra 30 per cent protection by a tariff arising from devaluation, many manufacturers would get together and manufacture by reason of import replacement. That has not occurred. I know that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is in the chamber, has some reservations, though I do not want to put words in his mouth. However, I do want to suggest that the dialogue over recent weeks has involved symptoms and not causes. I repeat that I say this in an attempt to be helpful and not in a vexatious or point-scoring way. The fact of the matter is that the balance of trade is simply a symptom-a symptom of a number of factors, one of them being the fall in export prices of both primary products and minerals and the other being the inflow of goods and services, causing the adverse balance. The fundamental cause of it all lies in one thing, yet over the recent weeks of dialogue, ever since the Treasurer (Mr Keating) referred to the likelihood of Australia becoming a banana republic, there has been almost no focusing on the key factor. The key factor is that our costs of production in Australia are at a level that renders us uncompetitive with the rest of the world. We cannot sell substantially more of our goods and services to the world outside, we cannot resist the flood of imports, because we are uncompetitive. Unless we become competitive with the rest of the world, two things will happen to us: The adverse balance of trade will go on, and manufacturing will continue on its present dangerous path of decline. Manufacturing and related service industries are the key to the re-employment of our people. The extraordinary situation is that we again are looking at the symptoms and not the causes. Australia really needs a government which is looking both at the real purchasing power of people who are in employment and at jobs of choice for the 8 per cent, or 600,000 people, who have no such jobs. We should particularly be talking day by day of the inbuilt, chronic unemployment that now runs throughout the whole of Australia and that is particularly so harsh upon the young. It is an unemployment which virtually denies choice to the young and which has caused desperation and despair. The two go together. In the past-I have cited these figures before-28 per cent of Australians were employed in manufacturing industry. I do not know the immediate figure now, but it is scarcely above 16 per cent. It is between 16 and 17 per cent. I think that is right; perhaps the Minister could correct me if I am wrong. Of course technology has played some part but fundamentally we have drifted along, believing that we could farm and quarry and get our wealth that way, failing to realise that both primary industry and the mining industry are not labour intensive in any way and that the more we depend on them alone to earn wealth for Australia, the more we put ourselves in a chronically unemployable situation. So fundamentally, looking at the symptoms of the trade balance, one should direct oneself to the cause-and the cause is cost of production. I read recently a magnificent speech by Charlie Fitzgibbon, who is very well known as a distinguished former leader of the trade union movement. He said something that I have said here and which I would like to have said a thousand times: We have created a confrontation society. In other words, we have built into Australia a society in which we have on the one side an organised union movement and on the other side an employer movement, in confrontation-each of them apparently seeking to get the maximum they can, each believing, incredibly, that they can score off each other. He very wisely has pointed out that the solution in this country must come by co-operation, not by confrontation, and that many of the disputes that exist should be resolved at factory or office level and not in an open court situation. I could not agree more with what he said. Honourable senators have heard me talk about the need to throw away the whole concept in Australia of the ugly idea, the ugly doctrine of class struggle and class disputes, and to come together. If there is one kind of consensus that is necessary, it is a consensus between management and worker that they have a common interest, a common goal-and that common goal is increased productivity. Charlie Fitzgibbon did something else. He said, again what I have said here before, that we have talked and the Government has talked about consensus and accord, but the consensus has been only a consensus between the government of the day and the trade union movement; that, indeed, it has not been a consensus with the elements of the community that control and determine costs. What I am about to say I say in no attempt at criticism of the Minister in the chamber. On the contrary, what I am trying to do is make a plea that we honestly tell the people of Australia what the problem is because the truth of the matter is that fundamentally the people, if they know, understand and believe the problem, will themselves go much of the way to resolving the problem. In other words, with the help of governments to get off their backs, with the help of better technology, with the need for better managerial skills and with an overcoming of this ugly confrontationist mentality that runs throughout Australia, boss and worker can get together. They have a choice, and the fundamental choice is this: One does not have to cut wages in a disastrous fashion or to cut living standards in a disastrous fashion to get costs down. There is a better way. The better way is to tell the people what is happening, to explain not only to the manufacturing industry but also to the Public Service and to every commercial office there is that if we can get teamwork and productivity, if we can get productivity up 10 per cent, we will become competitive again. That is the message. We should then be not just holding some kind of mini-summit on 5 June looking at the balance of trade or what we do or not do with this particular aspect of the recent tax measures; what we should be doing is holding a series of discussions between the people concerned as to how we get productivity up, quality up and costs down. That is the situation. We should not get sidetracked by talks about adverse balance of trade payments. They are a symptom in this situation. The real fact of the matter is that what we have done over the past three years is a very sad thing. Indeed, what we have done is to say to the people of Australia that things were going well whereas all we have really done is to index inflation. All we have really done is to say, as costs rise and as wages go up, we will try not to have above award wages but we will index inflation. Of course, if we do that, we will then maintain indefinitely the cost gap that we have with the rest of the world. That is a disastrous situation and that is precisely what is happening. That is precisely what happened in 1974-75 when we had a wages upsurge of 37 per cent in 18 months-a fleeing from industry of 110,000 people and a consumer price index in 1975 of 17.5 per cent and moving towards 20 per cent. They were disastrous days, as any unemployment upsurge is. I am not simply stating those things to score a point. Fundamentally I am saying that 110,000 people exited from manufacturing at that point, and that was a point at which high costs simply drove them out. Senator Button —About the same figures as 1982 under your Government. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes, in 1982 with a wages upsurge, not as big-- Senator Button —With no wages policy. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I acknowledge this. I have tried as much as I can to basically say: Let us not play ping-pong on this. Let us agree. Let us get a consensus across the chamber to say to the people of Australia that the clear message is this: Governments will not be coming along with carpet bags in future pretending that they can haul out policies one by one that will magically solve this situation, that governments can take some of the weight off the backs of people, but the solution in the end is a solution of higher productivity and lower costs. We can have higher productivity, people can keep their real wages and we can get more employment, or we can do what is happening now, we will simply run down the economy, there will be cuts in wages, cuts in living conditions and more unemployment. I rose simply to plea that we get the message to the people of Australia because I believe that if the people of Australia understand that, they will be on their way to helping to resolve it. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.26) —I was heartened to learn after the Estimates Committee A hearing on 21 March this year that the Public Service Board had distributed to all departments and statutory authorities staffed under the Public Service Act a questionnaire on smoking in the work place. Last Friday on Australian Broadcasting Corporation news a reporter outlined major initiatives being taken by the Reagan Administration in the United States of America to confine smoking to specially designated areas within departments. Will the Government now look at expediting the process of getting a smoke free work environment within the Public Service and, in the light of other information supplied to Estimated Committee A, will there be a close watch and report on cleaning and other costs from the various pilot programs where reforms are taking place? I would also like to know whether there is likely to be instituted a system for monitoring the levels of illness and absenteeism within each of these programs. I have a couple of other questions that arise from answers from the Public Service Board to Estimates Committee A relating to its involvement in an interdepartmental meeting over staff redundancy payments offered by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. I would like to know whether the Board and the Government acknowledge that Determination 509/77 applied in the case of the Authority. Furthermore, was any specific direction given to the Board of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority about the level of redundancy payments which were to be paid? If not, why did the Government, through the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), fail to use the ordinary powers of direction available to it under the ordinance, whereby the Minister could have actually directed the Authority to give specific levels of redundancy payments? As the Public Service Board claims that the Authority offered redundancy payments greatly in excess of the levels of payment generally made in Commonwealth employment, can the Minister give or obtain an outline of these alleged excesses? In fact, how does the Canberra Commercial Development Authority compare with the Darwin Reconstruction Authority, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation where redundancy payments were made in the same way? Has the Government received any representations from the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association in relation to these claims by the Public Service Board and what action does the Government intend to take in relation to those particular representations? Is it not unusual that a Minister is joined separately from the Public Service Board in proceedings before the courts relating to redundancy payments, or any other service issues, for that matter? It seems that in this case the Minister was joined separately. I turn to a fourth point relating to the Public Service Board and the employment of public servants, and this relates to the Toomer case. In the light of the statement by the former Health Minister, Doug Everingham, that he was deliberately deceived by some levels in his Department when the Toomer case was started, will the Government institute the independent inquiry recommended in 1976 by the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration? In particular, will the Government at least table copies of the report of Commissioner Munro who investigated the matter and detected tampering with the documents more than 10 years ago? Does the Government acknowledge that if quarantine procedures are ignored Australia will have a real problem? Not only will there be added risk to primary industry and to public health, but also there will be encouragement to organised crime to use ships for the transport of drugs. I believe that this is a sufficiently important matter to require some type of investigation. Lastly in this area I am concerned at the number of statutory bodies which are currently being audited through private auditors. I would like to know if possible: If private sector auditors are engaged, will they have to comply with guidelines or standards developed by the Auditor-General's Office? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.32) —Senator Vigor has submitted what I can only describe as a number of interrogatories, which would make the book Darkness at Noon look like a kindergarten story. We will try to get Senator Vigor answers to some of those questions, but I do not know how long the senator wants this saga to go on. Those questions have to be directed to numerous departments. We will certainly seek further answers for Senator Vigor, but I do not think it is fair to anticipate that the senator's researches, which have obviously been profound and which have produced all these questions, should necessarily produce answers today. We will try to follow them up, if that is satisfactory. Senator Vigor —That is quite satisfactory. Senator BUTTON —I want to make some brief comments about the remarks made by Senator Sir John Carrick. I interjected on only one occasion. I fully appreciate the spirit in which he put most of his arguments. It was only when by sheer force of habit he got back to explaining the sins of the Whitlam Government that I was tempted to interject. I do not disagree about the fundamentals in Senator Sir John Carrick's remarks, but I do disagree with some elements. Essentially he said that the balance of trade is a symptom of what has occurred rather than anything else, and I agree with that. But then he went on to analyse what he said was the fundamental cause-and I agree that it is a major cause-and that is the cost of production in Australia. It is a significant cause of some of our problems, but I do not think we should delude ourselves into thinking that that cause has emerged just recently. Senator Sir John Carrick —On the contrary; 30 years. Senator BUTTON —Certainly a very long period-30 years, 27 of them under a Liberal Government and three years of Labor government. Senator Sir John Carrick —Now Senator Button is committing the sin of which he accused me. Senator BUTTON —It was only a little peccadillo, because of Senator Sir John Carrick's sin. I will take it no further. His analysis was to the effect that we cannot resist a flood of imports because we are uncompetitive. There is a lot of truth in that. That was one of the reasons that led to the marked devaluation of the dollar. I do not think one can assume that we are a high cost society and uncompetitive totally because of wages. Senator Sir John Carrick —I did not say that. Senator BUTTON —I am not saying the senator did, but that point is often made. There are some successful manufacturing countries-such as Sweden, West Germany, Austria to some extent, and Japan-which in terms of wages have the same sort of cost structure as does Australia. Senator Walters —Not productivity. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters has given me a helpful suggestion because I had forgotten what I was going to say next, and now I know. The problem of competitiveness has been addressed in those countries on a great variety of fronts. For many years we addressed the problem of competitiveness in our domestic manufacturing industries by sheltering them with high tariff walls. That led us not to address all the other questions which have been addressed around the world, namely, quality, good marketing, design, innovative management, all those things which go to make a successful manufacturing sector. They are the things that other countries have addressed. I would argue that in Australia there are many small to medium sized firms which, as distinct from traditional Australian industry, have addressed those matters right from the beginning with fairly new and innovative management, many of them exporting 40 to 50 per cent of their product because they start on the assumption that they have to operate in a world market. I assure the honourable senator in all seriousness that there are plenty of those firms, but they are small. A lot of them are doing quite successfully because they have adopted a different approach from conventional manufacturing industry. Senator Sir John Carrick also referred to the employment figures. It has to be pointed out that with an unemployment figure of about 8 per cent, we have along with it at present very high participation rates by Australian historical standards. There has been a significant improvement in employment. It is arguable that for a whole variety of social and other reasons the full employment rate in Australia in the 1980s is probably not 2 per cent as we regarded it in the 1960s and 1970s. Senator Sir John Carrick —It is not 8 per cent. Senator BUTTON —I concede that, but I think it is somewhere in between. There is a range of generation and life style problems that would put the figure somewhere in between. In supporting what he had to say about employment, the honourable senator went on to say that the manufacturing work force in Australia had reduced from 28 per cent to 16 per cent. I think the figure is 17 per cent. I was asked what the figure was, so in fact the argument was that it had reduced from 28 per cent to 17 per cent. The figure of 28 per cent related to 1965. That was the highest year of manufacturing employment in Australia and it has steadily reduced since then. Senator Sir John Carrick said that it had something to do with technology, but I simply make the point that that pattern of decline has been reflected throughout the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The figures are fairly comparable. In one or two countries manufacturing sector employment has held up better, but there has been a fairly consistent pattern of decline. The reason for that, in my view, apart from what I would regard as substantial failures in policy settings and management in manufacturing industry, is increased productivity through better technology. I do not like to mention particular companies, but I will give an example of what I mean. Ten years ago the Simpson Pope whitegoods establishment in South Australia employed close to 10,000 people. It now employs about 1,800 and it produces roughly four times the volume it produced 10 years ago. I just mention that because it is one example which comes to mind, and that example can be replicated across a wide sector of better industry in Australia. Solahart in Western Australia, a very successful company in world markets, has reduced its employment, as I recall, from about 350 people to about 180 people in the manufacturing process. At the same time, the sales force of that company has increased about sevenfold, as I recall. That is the sort of pattern which is taking place not only in Australia but also throughout the world-certainly in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development world-and it will continue to take place here. That is why I believe governments cannot talk about employment and unemployment in segmented terms. Governments have to be concerned with aggregate employment. Whether it is in a particular sector of manufacturing or not, I think governments have to be concerned about aggregate figures. The most important thing about the manufacturing sector is its contribution to gross domestic product, which has also declined significantly. If its contribution to GDP can be raised it will create, I think, a wide variety of employment benefits in other industries, such as transport, distribution, insurance, sales and services. That aggregate effect will come through, which I believe to be very important. Senator Sir John Carrick went on to refer to Charlie Fitzgibbon's speech. In fact, it was a written paper; it was never given as a speech. Senator Sir John Carrick —It was a damn good paper. Senator BUTTON —I certainly do not claim to have written it. It was a totally original paper. I saw one of the first drafts of it and it is his work. It is a very thoughtful paper. I do not dissent from some of the issues which Senator Sir John Carrick singled out in that paper as being very important. Those issues have to be on the agenda for examination by governments and discussion amongst the wider community generally. I do not think I want to say any more. I understand what Senator Sir John Carrick is saying. We can go on debating and talking about these issues for a very long time. I just wanted to indicate one or two areas where my emphasis may be different from the honourable senator's but in general agreement with the comments which he makes. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.44) —I accept that this is not the appropriate time to extend the debate but, because this is in my view the most significant domestic issue before this country and one that is ironic, I would like to add a few brief words. First, we will be tending-and rightly so-to look in the days ahead at a series of matters. For example, can this country afford a superannuation scheme on a national level now or in the immediate future? Secondly, should the productivity case proceed? Thirdly, should there be either a wage freeze or discounting? Fourthly, how much can we cut back government spending to reduce the deficit and reduce the burden of borrowing? Assuming that great progress were made on all those things-that is an assumption that in my judgment is not likely to happen, and I do not say that in a dyspeptic way-that would be helpful but would not resolve Australia's problems. The great danger, and the reason I have risen twice on this, is that we have been tending to go from palliative to palliative and tending to say that if we do this, things will be right tomorrow. The fact of the matter is that if the competitive state of Australia and the employability in Australia are to be put right it will take some years. The truth has to be told to the Australian people. Yes, it would be helpful if we could get deferment of particular issues, such as superannuation and the productivity case. Yes, there ought to be an examination of at least the discounting of wages. I for one have no desire to be associated with the theory that cutting wages is the solution to everything. I am a creature of the Depression years. I know something about wage cutting. I know something about the miserable nature of it. The whole text of what I said before is that we do not have to go in for that if we really bend our minds to telling people that we have to get costs down through greater co-operation and productivity. That is the fundamental issue. The reason I rose before was to ask whether we could focus the whole of the message to the Australian people on what is the real issue. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has been kind enough to go a considerable amount of the way with my journey on this. The countries that are maintaining high living standards around the world-the kinds of living standards that Australia has had in the past-have manufactured goods as a majority of their exports. Those countries which depend simply on primary industry and mining have, in fact, relatively low living standards. My figures may be basically a little wrong when I talk about major industrial countries with high living standards having manufactured goods as about 60 per cent of their exports. Senator Button —I think you are a little right. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It is about right. We have got down to about 20 per cent. Let us take the quantum roughly. We have slipped in percentage terms in any case, as I said the other day. We used to occupy about 2 per cent of world trade with our exports. We now occupy 1.2 per cent. We have halved that figure roughly; we are slipping badly. It is not just a question of selling more metals. It is not just a question of doing those sorts of things. I will put it bluntly to the Senate and to the Australian people: We have an enormously gifted country compared to other countries. Very few countries have the whole range of minerals that we have. On top of that we have virtually an unlimited source of electric power. In other words, we have steaming coal in absolute abundance. With the minerals and the coal we have something like the setup of the past in Detroit on the Great Lakes. Yet we cannot combine our energy and our minerals effectively in terms of world trade to make the automotive vehicles that the Minister is rightly concerned about. We send coal to Japan. We send iron ore which is 50 per cent earth to Japan. Japan puts it through a factory, rolls it out into sheet plate and then exports it back to Australia, having carted it 7,000 or 8,000 miles by sea one way and the same distance back, and Japan can do it cheaper than we can do it here. Japan can do so not because its all up wages are any different from ours; in fact, a comparison of the Japanese community with the Australian community, taking into consideration the various benefits, shows that the Japanese wage structure is comparable with ours. The Japanese can achieve this through economy of scale, and that has to be recognised. However, this country cannot hide behind that because small countries such as Sweden and Switzerland have shown the way to do things well. I know of very few countries that have unlimited electric power. We export more than 50 per cent of the exported alumina in the world, certainly in the free world. I think the figure may apply only to the free world. Yet we find it hard to be cost competitive in applying the unlimited electric power that we have to convert alumina into metal and so benefit the Australian people with not only more work but also more wealth to share equally. These are the kinds of things with which we have to grapple if we are to take Australia into a position in which there are more jobs. I accept from the Minister that when manufacturing raises its gross domestic product more people are employed in service industries. I have linked together manufacturing and services. If we are to achieve this we in Australia have to take the natural elements we have, combine them and create. It is an outrage that we do not make the flat steel that we need to put together an automotive vehicle. Indeed, today we do not make an automotive vehicle; we make much less of it than we made 20 years ago. I get to the fundamentals of this matter. Unless by manufacturing we can overcome imports, that is, unless we can get import replacement, we will not stop the tide. Sadly, primary products and metals will not rise in price because first of all developing countries are becoming far more self sufficient. Today India has achieved a miracle. It has 700 million people and she is feeding herself and has a surplus. Other countries are doing exactly that. The low price of oil is decreasing the price of and demand for our coal so we are facing the years immediately ahead with a lesser opportunity to earn money by farming and extracting. If we are to earn and if we want to employ people in this country we have to get the level of manufactured and service goods up. It is no good saying that we cannot do it. I repeat: We are one of the few countries that have the minerals at hand and the electric power at hand: All we need is the will. The countries with which we compete-Japan, Korea and Singapore-have virtually no physical resources at all. They get almost the whole of their minerals and their power supplies from countries such as Australia. Yet because they have a perception of goals-in other words, they have a fire in their bellies and they look at a hostile world around them-they perceive the goals of the need for productivity, the need for team work and the need to get together. As I have said in the Senate before, when the workers in Japan go on strike, what do they do? They put on a black arm band and they work twice as hard. Basically they are saying that management and worker recognise that the source of their interests are identical and that one damages the other if they strive against each other. Until we get that kind of attitude in Australia we will not go anywhere. Why I rose earlier was to say to the Minister: Cannot we explain to the people of Australia that our problem is not something that will be solved by fiddling at the edges? It is not something that will be solved on 5 June, although I wish the meeting well and that it will get some results. I hope that the meeting gets solutions about deferring the superannuation and productivity case. Our problem is not something that in the long run will be solved by governments cutting wages; it will be solved by doing nothing and wages plummeting because that is what will happen. Our problem will be solved when we tell the people of Australia the truth, and the truth is that our problem is an attitudinal one. We in Australia have never been told the truth. We have never been told what the goals are and how they are to be solved. Over the years governments have always said: `Put us in and we will produce from some kind of magic bag all sorts of things that will solve everything'. That will not have any currency any more. If we are to solve anything at all we will have to say to the people of Australia: `We need to focus your perception on goals'. Those goals ought to be very real to every family in Australia. The goals ought to be that if one wants more jobs for the young, if one wants them to be given the chance to choose jobs, if one wants one's own job to be maintained and one's purchasing power to be maintained one has to change attitudinally Australia's confrontational system to one of co-operation. We must get around the table and get together with all the devices that the Minister quite rightly mentioned-not just a wage device at all; we need technology, management skills and governments easing the burden. If we do that we will be right. However, do not let us for the Lord's sake talk about M3s, the consumer price index and all the other jargon which are only symptoms. We will put Australia on the right track if we say: `We are in a jam. We are being costed out of world markets'. There are two ways to get back into world markets. Do nothing, do roughly what we are doing and go down in the lift, or take a tremendous cut in our living standards and there will be more unemployment. We do not recommend that. I certainly reject it out of hand. The sensible thing to do is to get together. Let us apply our minds consistently to one thing-how to get costs down and productivity up-and then we might solve this problem. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.57) —I want to raise a matter which is perhaps not on such a grand scale of debate as the one which has taken place on these Estimates. However, it is very relevant to the discussion in one particular respect. The Government concedes-I think it is generally accepted-that the economic crisis immediately facing Australia at present is immediately due to a fall in the price that a wide range of Australian commodities are commanding on world markets. This highlights the particular problem that Australia has as a major trader in the world particularly when we have, as has occurred, a fall in commodity prices across a wide range of products. We have been debating what should be done about this on the wider scale. I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) to a problem which has arisen in relation to a number of important commodities, namely, those that were traded on the London Metal Exchange in recent months as a result of a major crisis which has confronted that exchange, a crisis for which Australia has a very real responsibility. I refer to the collapse of the International Tin Council and all the matters associated with it since October last year. On 24 October last year the International Tin Council announced that it was no longer able to meet its debts. The London Metal Exchange then suspended any operations of the tin market conducted on its exchange. That has had extremely serious repercussions for a large number of people. In particular, when the International Tin Council announced that it was no longer able to pay its debts it had forward commitments, through brokers operating on the London Metal Exchange, in respect of a large quantity of tin contracts. As it had apparently been in difficulty for some time, it had incurred considerable debts to some banks. The upshot of this decision has been to leave it immediately with debts or liabilities both to brokers, who themselves are in serious financial difficulties as a result, and to banks of an amount at the time of something like #900m sterling. The immediate significance of this for Australia is that it has been a member of the International Tin Council for some time. It has had a representative at meetings of that Council. There is a widespread perception that the Council had been facing difficulties for some time and yet had continued to trade. The International Tin Council comprised not only Australia but also a number of other countries interested either in supplying or purchasing tin. The Council was designed to keep up an economic price for tin and to provide an assured supply to the users of the metal. It simply failed in those objectives. I am not in a position to make any judgment as to whether that was due simply to the price of tin being sustained at lower levels than had been expected, whether the Tin Council should have foreseen that happening, whether it should have continued trading and so on. Very grave questions can be asked about all of those things. But the main question that now arises is: What are the responsibilities of the sovereign states, the member countries that comprised the International Tin Council, of which Australia is one? I raise these issues in the consideration of these estimates for several reasons. Firstly, it is a very serious matter for trade. It is a matter in which the Minister, although not directly responsible, obviously has a very considerable interest given his portfolio and his position as a senior member of the Government. Secondly, the estimates that we are being asked to pass in this group contain additional estimates for payment said to be due to a body known as Tinco Ltd which was put together to try to salvage the wreck of the tin market following the collapse of the International Tin Council and the suspension of tin trading on the London Metal Exchange. In these estimates, under the heading of contributions to international organisations, the Government informs us that in March 1986 it agreed that $11m would be paid to the International Tin Council for transfer to Tinco Ltd subject to certain conditions being fulfilled. The position is that, since that note was prepared and the information supplied to us, there have been some further very dramatic and serious developments. Following the collapse that I described, those involved tried to set up a salvage operation in the form of this company known as Tinco Ltd, of which the member countries of the Internat- ional Tin Council, various brokers, bankers and so on would become shareholders. This salvage operation was put together over subsequent months. But that operation has now failed. There has been a double failure. There was a failure of the tin market in October last year and since probably April this year there has been a failure of the rescue operation. What we have fairly and squarely been left with are large debts owed not only by the International Tin Council but also by the brokers and banks with which it dealt and from which it had borrowed money. They all face serious financial problems. A number of countries, of which Australia is one, seem to be intent, to put it mildly, to welsh on the debts that have been created as a result of the failure of the operations of the Council from which those countries had benefited for some years. This simply cannot be allowed to go on indefinitely. I raised this issue during the hearings of the estimates for the Department of Resources and Energy. That was perhaps not the appropriate Department; nevertheless I thought that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) would have had a passing interest in it. I got a very clear brush-off from Senator Evans. He said that these things would be determined according to legal responsibilities. He did not seem to think that there was any moral or commercial responsibility for Australia in this matter. Generally speaking, he did not seem to care less about it. If Australia does not care less about its reputation as a trading nation, and its reputation for commercial morality and propriety, we do not have much hope of solving the critical situation that we face on the larger scale. Here is a very good example fairly and squarely of where we have to improve our performance and our standing in the world. We are one of a group of countries which seem to be walking away from their responsibilities to those people with whom they dealt through the International Tin Council and on the London Metal Exchange, and standing behind what is a legal fiction of sovereign state immunity. Apparently those countries will maintain technical legal defences of this kind. This is very serious not only for the standing of those countries, of which Australia is one, in the international commodity markets and for those who are engaged in them, but also it has very serious repercussions for the London Metal Exchange. Many of Australia's metals are traded on that Exchange. I am informed that the disturbance created on the London Metal Exchange is very serious. Brokers and others operating on that Exchange have been very seriously affected by this crisis of the International Tin Council and the failure of the rescue operation. Brokers have had to leave the scene because of the huge losses they have incurred and for which the International Tin Council does not accept responsibility. I am informed that the disturbance of that kind and of that magnitude is affecting generally the prices of metals traded on that Exchange. For a number of reasons Australia and the Government should be very concerned and should be a leader in this area. Other countries involved may not be shouldering their responsibilities but countries such as Australia should be deeply concerned about their international reputation as commodity traders. The Australian Government should be taking some very firm steps in this matter. I would really like to know what the Government proposes to do about this problem and what is happening with the $11m that was to be contributed to a company which has failed. What alternative will be proposed by the Government? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.11) —I will speak briefly on the Department of Trade. What I say follows upon what I said before about another department. We still have something of the attitude to trade that we had, not just 30 years ago but even pre-war. Pre-war, the terms of trade were very simple: Twenty-eight per cent of all Australian trade went to the United Kingdom. The Australian concept was that the closest nation to Australia was the United Kingdom. We could not imagine ourselves being so close to anywhere else in the world. We certainly had no knowledge of Asia. A war brought that to our doorstep. The terms of trade are now somewhat similar but in a different direction. About 26 per cent or 27 per cent of Australia's trade-the last figures I saw-goes to Japan, almost totally as unprocessed materials. Incidentally, Japan manufactures from those materials. Drawing figures from the top of my head, about 34 per cent of Japan's trade, almost totally in manufactured goods, goes to the United States of America. That is the picture. Somehow we have never got away from our belief that the way to supply the world was to supply the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe with particular primary products. We have failed to realise one fundamental fact. We talk of the European Economic Community. It is a great pity that it was ever called that because it was not designed primarily as an economic community. The Treaty of Rome, largely drawn up by Schuman and Churchill, was designed under a defence concept. It was designed so to intermix the countries of Western Europe that they could not fight each other and so to intermingle their economies that they would have to be interdependent. They had been overrun by two world wars-part of the European continent had been overrun almost every 20 years by wars-and so developed a concept that they had to be self-sufficient in food. We have been struggling with the mentality that we should continue to try to send foodstuffs or fibre into the EEC. The problem now is not with that but with dumping of EEC surpluses on the world market-a real problem. The rigidity of our thinking over the decades of governments of all complexions, which still lingers with us, is such that we have failed to realise that the world has changed, that the direction of markets has changed enormously, that the demand for food, fibres or manufactured goods has changed greatly and that what is needed absolutely is to get our trade commissioners and the Department of Trade to be highly scientific in determining where the markets lie. The other day, I heard a learned debate here or in the other place about how we should brand our wine because people in Japan could not tell whether a wine was Austrian or Australian. It so happens that the word for Australia is Osu-to-ra-ri-a and the word for Austria is Osu-to-ri-a, except that the Japanese when referring to us also call us Go-shu. That would not be given in a learned dissertation on Japan, but it identifies the situation. Senator MacGibbon —What is `Go-shu'? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —That is the name for Australia. We took a long while under my Government to persuade butcher shops in Japan to put in katakana-that is, in stiff brush writing-Osu-to-ra-ri-a in front of them to indicate that the meat was Australian because of the confusion. That is a terribly simple situation. The idea that one should put an emu or a kangaroo on bottles ought to be thrown out the window because on jam and tomato sauce we put symbols which people thought indicated the origin of the product. The mind boggles. I was in the western districts recently. I had not thought that that possibly would be a solution to the very large number of emus that I saw. This is a nonsense situation. One looks at Japan and sees what appears to be a market. Japan is extremely inefficient in its internal marketing. The landed costs of our meats in Japan is small compared with the enormous cost at the butcher shop. We should be looking at such matters. I will not give lectures on trade. The Lord knows that I have no such skills. I simply point out that we need not only to increase the volume of our trade but also to find what the world needs that we best can produce and we should produce it because if we simply say `Let us take the fair average quality situation' that will register in a downward slump. For years under a series of governments we thought that the only way to produce wheat was to use a wheat called Bencubbin. It was FAQ in every sense. The world judged us on it. By breed and nature it was a soft wheat. It took us a long while to learn that we should produce a variety of hard wheats to meet world markets. That illustrates the tendency. I do not believe that even now our Department of Trade is attuned to finding out such things and feeding them back to us. If countries such as Sweden and Switzerland can do such things then so can we. If countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong can produce high technologies, why can we not do so? A year or two ago I was in the presence of Lee Kuan Yew when he said that he liked high wages. I know something about Singapore. I got my wharf labourer's ticket there many years ago in another context. In those days a catty-or 20 ounces-of rice cost 3c. That was in a peasant economy. Today Singapore is a high technology economy. Lee Kuan Yew is busily trying to build up the economy not in a labour-intensive way as in the past but in the reverse way because he knows that if he can increase technology and quality he can find markets around the world. We do not have to go far to look at similar matters. I have risen several times today, not because I want to hear my own voice, but because I believe that the urgency of what is facing Australia is not realised. I have an obsessive view that what we are going to do will be another band-aid, another palliative, another promise that if we get the summit or the Budget right, she'll be right mate. She won't be right mate at all. The fact is that inherent in the Australian economy at the moment are a number of grave defects. The whole of our orientation is very largely out of skew. We need to sit down together to work things out. That does not mean that primary industry has to shrink. On the contrary, primary industry is an industry of very high productivity and has survived because of that productivity. It has to adjust to the products and the markets to remain viable. But it cannot do so if the costs of production in Australia are such that they price our primary industry out of world markets. I have said it in this place previously and I say it again: Of all costs incurred by farms, about 80 per cent are incurred outside the farm, or off the farm, and are outside the farmer's control. So the way to help the farmer is to get outside costs down. The best way to help the farmer-I have said it previously-is to consider freight. Freight is not just a question of whether a railway train runs on time or whether a grain handling authority is working properly. We should look at all the ingredients of freight to see whether we can refine our costs. Again, a rule of thumb is that 40 per cent of all rural costs are freight costs. I speak to the estimates for the Department of Trade in the hope that we will put the European Economic Community into perspective. Let us try to stop EEC member countries dumping. Let us see whether we can export to EEC countries products they do not produce themselves. Let us have our arguments with Japan and the United States of America to increase our percentage of beef exports to Japan. Let us do those things but, fundamentally, let us also recognise that it is a new world. It is not going to be simply a world in which we can put fair average quality products on the market. Our mineral industry has done rather well. It is not labour intensive. Today, other countries, particularly the South American countries, such as Brazil and the like, can and do produce minerals not only, in the case of iron, sometimes with a higher Fe content but also at cheaper prices. So we must do things better. It is not just a case of beneficiating the ore. The whole process of things is involved. We have to develop the spirit of adventure-people going out into the world to find the right markets. I repeat: If Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland and other countries can do it-if Korea, which has nothing except human spirit, can do it-then Australia can do it. But we need the message. We need the orientation. We need the goal and the perception. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.25) —I acknowledge the comments made by Senator Durack about the somewhat sad history of the international tin industry in the last six months or so. It is true that the International Tin Council collapsed in October and that there are problems with the salvage operation to which Senator Durack referred. Senator Durack said that there was a fear in his mind that the Australian Government would welsh on an agreement from which the Australian Government and other governments have benefited for some years. I want to correct that. It is a matter of fact that the Australian Government is a relatively recent signatory to the international tin agreement. My recollection is that Australia entered into the agreement early in 1985 or late in 1984. I do not say that that makes much difference to the obligations which we assume, but I think it is correct as a matter of fact. It is true to say that the Government recognises that there is a shared responsibility amongst all members of the International Tin Council. The Australian Government is ready to make a sensible contribution once agreement is reached amongst the parties, but I am told that agreement has not yet been reached or has not appeared to be possible, including even in relation to the Tinco proposal. I make the point that, as a participant in those discussions, Australia is a relatively very small exporter by world standards, countries such as Malaysia being amongst the largest exporters. The Australian Government has not thought it appropriate to seek to dominate the discussions in the Tin Council or to take a very high profile. But there is, I am informed, no question of walking away from responsibilities. When those discussions have proceeded a little further the Government no doubt will have to address this issue again in a very substantive way. The appropriate Minister ought to be able to respond in greater detail at that time. I am informed also that the $11.1m appropriated in the Additional Estimates will not now be required in the 1985-86 financial year because of the course which the discussions have followed. This fact has been advised in respect of the May revised estimates. The question of any contribution and funds to meet that contribution, if any, will be considered for the 1986-87 year in the Budget context. Again, the best I can say is that when those discussions get a little further down the track we will be in a position to say something about the matter and give some estimate of the amount which will be required in the Budget context, if any. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.28) —I raise a matter-not a large compendium of questions-of a political nature regarding the Department of Science. I would like to follow up some information provided on notice to Estimates Committee A by the National Standards Commission. Since November 1985 the Commission has chaired a working party of Commonwealth, State and Territory officers to develop uniform weights and measures legislation and administration in Australia. What has been the Commonwealth Government's reaction to the March 1986 report of the working party is definitely a very good question. That report went to the Department of Science, I presume, and was considered by the Government. Does the Government have a timetable for the development of this uniform weights and measures legislation? If we can introduce uniform weights and measures legislation we can save tens of millions of dollars each year for Australian businesses and consumers. I believe that this is a political question which can be answered from a ministerial point of view. If the Government proposes to introduce such legislation, does it intend to include Telecom Australia and Australia Post meters and other instruments in these bodies under the weights and measures legislation? Will the Government be introducing that legislation in the near future? I also seek an indication from the Government as to whether the National Standards Commission will be responsible for the accreditation of standards in relation to computer security and interfacing. These issues are being addressed overseas. Currently there are very good links between the Commission and the Standards Association of Australia which has committees with wide public and private sector input into the problem of setting standards for computing and communications. I believe that we should address these problems before they become chronic and before we have a proliferation of different standards in the computer area, as has happened already in the area of video tapes and that type of thing. The Government could give the go ahead to the computer security advisory group to work on these matters. I would like to know whether there is any intention of doing so, or of getting the National Standards Commission to work on this area and to produce some recommendations. I address two questions to the Minister: Firstly, when can we expect from the Government uniform weights and measures legislation; and, secondly, is the Government considering getting some special body to consider the introduction of computer security and interfacing standards? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.31) —I have to deal with a simple little question, which was Senator Vigor's euphemism for the speech he has just made. I do not have a wheelbarrow of surprises or anything like that in answer to Senator Vigor's question. A working party of Commonwealth and State officials are looking at the question of uniform standards of weights and measures throughout Australia. Those officials began meeting at the end of 1985. As Senator Vigor pointed out, they reported to Ministers in March 1986. The proposal is that a new standardised or rational system should operate from 1988. A Bill will have to be prepared, which will take time, and there will be a process of consultation with industry in the preparation of any legislation, once Ministers have determined the course of the report submitted to them. As I have pointed out, this is a co-operative exercise between Commonwealth, State and Territory governments and those exercises are always slow in producing results, but it is believed that it will secure a uniform approach to the issue of measurements throughout Australia. It is proposed that the uniform legislation will address questions such as Telecom meters, to which Senator Vigor referred in his speech-I hope not parking meters, but Telecom meters-and there will be a greater scope in the proposed uniform legislations than there has been to date. The second question relates to computer security and standards. I recall that that question was not raised by Senator Vigor in the context of the Estimates Committee. I apologise if I am wrong in saying that, but I think that is so. I do not now know of any government agency which is addressing that question at the moment, but I will take it as a suggestion rather than a question, and I will see what we can do. Proposed expenditures agreed to. GROUP B Department of Community Services Proposed expenditure, $26,201,000 Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $5,420,000 Department of Social Security Proposed expenditure, $18,628,000 Department of Health Proposed expenditure, $17,539,000 Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.34) —I have four questions with which I hope the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) can help me, relating to the Department of Social Security. Does the Minister need any assistance? Senator Button —I might not need any. You fire away and see how we go. Senator WALTERS —I have not known Senator Button to be all that interested in this particular area, but if he can come up with the answers he will amaze me. I refer to the special assistance program scheme. At the moment, as I understand it, SAP funding for the short, medium and long terms is given 100 per cent in advance to the shelters for certain age groups. Will I wait? I do not think the Minister knows much about SAP. Senator Button —I would keep going if I were you. Senator WALTERS —Could the Minister tell me what ages of youths are catered for under the SAP scheme? I repeat that there is 100 per cent funding for the shelters. Senator Button —Is that all you want to ask? Senator WALTERS —Depending on the information. Senator Button —I am not going to get up and down like a yo-yo and answer each question. If you want to put a number of questions, I will try to answer them. Senator WALTERS —It makes it a bit difficult. Could the Minister say whether the age group, which was from 15 to 25 years, has been reduced to 12 to 25? It depends on whether the Minister says yes or no as to what the next question will be. I cannot go on to the next question without finding out that answer. Here is Senator Grimes, he might be able to throw some light on it. Senator Button —I understand that the answer to your question is no. Perhaps you could go on with the next question on that assumption. Senator WALTERS —I would like the answer to be accurate. What is the answer-`no' to which? Senator Button —You asked whether the age had been dropped from 15 to 12 years and I said that you could proceed with your questions on the assumption that the answer is no. Senator WALTERS —If it is not 15 to 25 years, could the Minister tell me what age group is catered for under the SAP scheme? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.37) —That is very simple. There are three sections of the special assistance program. The first section is a general SAP which is unlimited age; some people may be up to 100. Then there are the women's emergency services, which relate to younger and older women. The youth program in general relates to the 15 to 25 years age group. However, as Senator Walters knows, it is very difficult for people running a shelter when a 13 or 14 year old turns up who has been on the road for some months or even years, as Senator Walters and I have seen. Under those circumstances, I dare say the shelters would not turn them away. It depends on the various States-the States administer this program-as to what the law is and how it is applied to young people. As we all know, in some States any child of that age who turned up would quickly become a ward of the State; other States may take a tolerant view of it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.38) —The question was whether the age had been lowered from 15 to 12 years. The answer to that was no and I thank the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) for that. The next question in relation to the Department of Social Security again concerns institutions and relates to family allowances paid to institutions. I believe that the procedure is that the Department of Social Security sends a form to the children's homes or institutions for them to fill out and the allowance is paid quarterly. On occasions that payment has run very late. Indeed, the forms are sent out very late. This month the forms were sent out after the amount was due to be paid. I will run through the list of delays for the months from November 1985 to February 1986; three months delay, one month, three months, two months, five months and two months. As the Minister would be aware, the cash flow problem is crucial when the amount is only paid quarterly and large amounts of money are being waited on. When there are delays such as I have already mentioned-in particular, the five-month delay between November 1984 and February 1985-I just ask what is the reason for the delays and is there anything the Minister can do to speed up payment? Can the Minister do any- thing about getting the forms out on time so that they can be filled in and the amounts can be paid on time? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.41) —I cannot give the honourable senator the exact information on that this afternoon. I must say I am surprised; it is the first time I have ever heard this raised. The number of family allowances paid to institutions in this country is very small compared to the number of allowances paid to individual families. Of all the systems we have, I think the family allowance system is the most efficient. It certainly has the highest take-up and has the most efficient paying mechanism of all those systems in the Department of Social Security. I will have to make some inquiries of the Department about this, and it should not take long to find out. Are the institutions the honourable senator is worried about in Tasmania? Senator Walters —Yes. Senator GRIMES —I do not even need the names of the institutions, because only a couple get the allowances. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.42) —I wish to ask the Minister about the allowable income rate for pensioner married couples of $120 a week. When is there likely to be an increase in that rate according to the consumer price index? There has been no increase up until this time. Senator Grimes —I am not sure I understand. We index pensions every May and November. Are you worried about the income level? Senator WALTERS —The allowable income for a married couple is $120. The consumer price index increase is not applied to the over-70s age group. Can the Minister say when they will get the increase? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.43) —That is a budgetary decision. I think in 1978 the over-70s stopped getting automatic consumer price index increases. Not being the Minister for Social Security any more, I have forgotten at what intervals in the last few years they have received increases. Whether or not they do is a budgetary decision. Again I will have to get exact details from the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) on that point. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.44) —I have only one remaining question. Can the Minister tell the Committee how much the Department has already saved as a result of the amnesty that has applied since February? The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) said at that time he expected to save $90m by 1988. The amnesty is due to expire on the 31st of this month, at the end of this week, and I am wondering whether the Minister can give us some idea of how much the Department has been able to save as a result of the amnesty. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.44) —The last time I answered a question on this it was estimated-I will check it but I am pretty sure I am right-that until about a fortnight ago we had already gained in the region of $10m. What that extrapolates to in the long term I do not know. It is my understanding that we are going to extend the amnesty, by legislation, soon. Is there not a Bill floating around that will extend the amnesty for certain purposes? I do not have the exact figure here, although I thought I did have. One of my staff just took off out of the chamber, so I hope I can have the answer for the honourable senator in the next few minutes or, if not in 10 or 15 minutes. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.45) —Can the Minister give me an idea of how much the publicity for the amnesty cost? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.45) —I cannot at the moment, but I will certainly get it for the honourable senator. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.46) —I would like to follow up some questions concerning the children's services item of the estimates. On page 305 of the Estimates Committee Hansard, Senator Grimes states that some Victorian child care centres are setting standards that are far too high and that they are being unreasonable in not reducing them. What does the Government believe are reasonable standards, and what authority has been given to public servants to approach child care centres to get them to reduce the number of qualified staff? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.46) —The Government is approaching this on an individual centre basis. I will give the honourable senator an example of something I think is unreasonable: A centre which has 25 or 27 children in care has seven staff, all of them fully qualified. I think that is unreasonable, and to expect the taxpayer to subsidise that sort of centre is unreasonable. Another centre has qualified staff up to the level that would have been required under the previous legislation but pays them in one case 15 per cent, in another case 25 per cent and in another case 30 per cent above award wages, and also employs a full time gardener and a full time cook. I do not mind if they do that, but I do not think it is reasonable to expect taxpayers, particularly taxpayers in other States, to provide that staff. So in this year of transition we have suggested that people can lower those standards, or adjust them, and certainly if centres wish to they can ask officers of the Department to make suggestions about how that should be done. In the meantime, for this transitional year, we are providing assistance for those who have some difficulty in lowering those standards. In Vic- toria, as the honourable senator probably knows, there are no State licensing standards at all for child care centres. We take the cases individually but, simply, the fact is that costs of child care per place in this country vary from about $50 to a situation in a couple of extraordinary cases in Victoria and I think one in Western Australia where the cost is $150 per child per week. I do not think it is reasonable for these groups to expect the rest of the taxpayers to subsidise what I consider to be those excessively high standards. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.48) —I follow up that question by asking how regularly the Government intends to review ceilings for child care fee relief purposes. How will it inform the people of what are acceptable levels in this area? I move also to another question about the Commonwealth-State-local government working parties which have been established in States other than Victoria to inquire into the staffing, service quality and funding arrangements for child care centres, and whether the standards they suggest will be those accepted by the Federal Government. Apparently about half the centres in South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and Victoria are expected to have break-even costs of around $80 a week or more in 1985-86. Will the Government be looking at either the subsidy ceiling or transitional arrangements in the light of those recommendations? Lastly, is any special action being taken with respect to child care centres in remoter areas as a result of the additional costs over which they have no control, such as fringe benefit taxes and things of that nature that the Government has introduced? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.50) —We will consider adjusting annually the ceilings and the limits that Senator Vigor talked about, so that after we have looked at how the new scheme operates in the first year we will take that into consideration, having got all the figures at the end of this year. As to the second point he made, we do have Commonwealth, State and local government working parties in some of the States looking at the standards. We had one in Victoria. The Municipal Association of Victoria, together with the trade union movement and officers of the Department of Community Services, is looking at the standards in Victoria. The Australian Early Childhood Association Inc., being the oldest and the most respected child care association, has taken on a contract from the Government to look at the standards Australia-wide. I would love to be in the situation where we had some sort of uniformity of standards around Australia but, quite frankly, having been the Minister involved in this area for just on three years and having talked about this to State Ministers at conferences of State Ministers for some three years, I am afraid I have little hope of that coming forth soon, and I will not be holding my breath. We already provide extra assistance for those in remote areas. The tolerance for capital costs that we provide in remote areas is well known. We also provide additional assistance for centres in remote areas to make up for all the things that Senator Vigor talked about-difficult conditions, higher costs, difficulty in obtaining qualified staff, et cetera. What I want to see, though, is some sort of rationality in the standards provided in children's services programs. In Western Australia recently, Senator Vigor may know, a consent award was agreed to by seven child care centres and one union. That award involves two weeks extra annual leave for all staff; it involves two hours reading time per week for all staff, during which time they have to be replaced by others; it involves automatic stress leave; and it involves increases in salary. If that is agreed to by the Industrial Relations Commission, it will add something like $20 per week per child to the costs of the centres. I have said quite clearly that there is no guarantee that Government or any other government will agree to fund those awards. Furthermore, I have said that if I was going to provide two hours reading time to anyone in this country it would be to women who do process work in food factories or clothing factories or men who work in foundaries under difficult conditions. My first cab off the rank in this respect would not be workers in children's services centres. We all have to look fairly sensibly at costs in this country. We provide good quality child care at a cost which is comparable to that of any other country in the world. The myth is put out amongst child care centres in this country that we provide care that is expensive and that is not good quality. I urge any of those people who perpetuate this myth to go to the countries they frequently cite-countries such as Sweden, Denmark and West Germany-and compare the quality and the costs with ours. They will be very surprised. The problem is that our percentage of cover is very low. I am trying to improve the access of people in the community to children's services, but I cannot improve the access if the costs in existing centres are going to go up and up to provide conditions which I, and I think any reasonable person in the community, think are unreasonable. Senator Vigor said that 50 per cent of centres in South Australia and Victoria will break even under the existing budgets. Our figure is 75 per cent. The real question is why the other 25 per cent cannot break even. Mostly it is because of extra benefits and frills they have built into their budgets. I do not object to those extra benefits but I do object to those centres expecting the rest of the community to pay for them. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.55) —The response by the Minister for Community Services to the questions asked by Senator Vigor concerning child care costs really referred to the extent to which the Government would fund certain local arrangements. Is it not correct that we have seen this year a government decision, which really is a policy decision, which took $10m net out of the child care system and then introduced a series of administrative arrangements to try to accommodate that cut of $10m? The Minister says that the amount of subsidy which he can offer to any particular service is limited and he said that he does not mind if they have certain arrangements, but they cannot come to the Commonwealth seeking to have them underwritten. I think so far I have stated accurately what the Minister has said. Senator Grimes —Almost. Senator PETER BAUME —Almost accurately; that is okay. It is the imposition of a fee limit which I find is the logical flaw here because if, in fact, some of those centres want to provide, as it were, a Rolls Royce service and the fee which has to be charged is above the limit which the Minister has set down, they are then caught in a very real squeeze. Will the Minister comment upon the fact that there is an upper fee limit which is part of the deal which he offers as well as a subsidy level? I have another question which I will ask now to save the Minister getting up again. It is a very simple question of fact. I understand that nursing home benefits are paid in respect of some 56,500 beds. I understand that deficit funding arrangements exist in respect of about 18,700 beds. My very simple questions is: Are those 18,700 beds part of the 56,500 total or are they in addition to it? It makes the calculations one wants to do quite different. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.58) —I hope the answer to the latter question is on the way into the chamber. It is all in the latest review we have put out, but that question has caught me out. I will go back to the child care question. We have certainly made administrative arrangements which will result in a saving, we estimate, of about $10m in the recurrent costs of child care in this country. It is wrong to say that we decided on the $10m and then made the administrative arrangements. In fact, Cabinet hoped to get more than that. I am not saying that I did. What happened is that we applied the minds of a very good task force of public servants to having a most comprehensive look at the child care system that we have in this country to get far more information than we have had in the past and to come up with a system which provided for protection for low income earners, reasonable costs for others and a reasonable upper level of costs-a system with which we felt we could maintain the standards of child care. We came up with the existing system and that happened to save us about $10m or a bit more in a full year. That is what happened. We set an upper limit, an upper fee, but that fee is for people who are getting a fee subsidy. If people have incomes over $36,000 and they are not getting a fee subsidy, centres can charge what they like. If centres do not want any fee subsidy, they can also charge what they like. Senator Peter Baume —In the one centre there could be some people receiving subsidies and some people not? Senator GRIMES —Yes, it happens frequently that some people receive subsidies and some people do not. The concept of need in children's services, I might add, is quite different from the concept of need in any other area of welfare. It is only in the area of children's services that one could be told, as I was told in Melbourne, that $600 a week is a low income. It is only in this area that one gets people ringing in on talk-back programs, as I did in Sydney, complaining bitterly that on $46,000 a year there is no way in the world that they could afford to pay $5 a week more for child care than what they are paying now. There are people who believe that children's services should be available 24 hours a day free of charge to anybody who wants them. I understand that applies to a large number of people in East Germany and in areas of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It just happens not to apply this side of the Iron Curtain. It certainly does not apply in the Scandinavian countries which are frequently held up to us as paragons of virtue in the area of children's services. I, in common with everyone else, would like to see everything free and available 24 hours a day. Senator Puplick —Everything! Senator GRIMES —Well, nearly everything-perhaps not ice-cream. Most of us will not be around to see that and I think that is probably a good thing. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.01) —Does the Minister happen to know why there has been a sudden upsurge of concern in the city of Newcastle about a child care centre in the grounds of the University of Newcastle? I advise the Minister that there is a sudden flurry of correspondence about the fact that the university is being placed in some jeopardy. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(6.02) —In regard to the question on nursing homes, the figure is $56,000 plus $18,000. The matter related to the University of Newcastle I have not heard about, but I dare say I will. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.02) —I have a few questions in the area of health. I would like some indication of government policy in a couple or areas, one of which I have raised with Senator Grimes on the adjournment and on which I have had no answers whatever. I refer to the Dalkon shield. Has the Government made any intercessions with the United States authorities with a view to getting an extension of time for filing claims by Australians in the current Dalkon shield litigation in Richmond, Virginia? There a couple of other associated matters of which the Department has had enough notice to be able to give some reasonable answer. There is a major disparity between the numbers of Australian Dalkon shield claimants in the current United States litigation and the report obtained from the Department of Health through its voluntary reporting system. The Department's system picked up only one problem in 40 or maybe even 50. Unnecessary suffering apparently continued for years longer than it should have in these cases. Has the Government now devised a compulsory notification scheme, and is there any intention of introducing such a system? It could be on the lines of the one introduced in the United States and the one found to be very useful in Sweden. In regard to the compulsory notification scheme, does the Government have any commitment to child accident surveillance systems such as the one which has enabled Sweden to markedly reduce the injury rates for children in that country? Also there is the problem of surveillance of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and therapeutic goods in general. Does the Government intend to make more resources available to the National Health and Medical Research Council so that we can get more independent examination of the claims of manufacturers of these various products? These are areas in which overseas savings of the order of $20 per dollar invested have been achieved. Will the Minister comment on the figures and the questions? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(6.05) —On the question of the Dalkon shield, I apologise to Senator Vigor, because he did raise this matter on the adjournment a couple of weeks ago. I have not any direct answers, although I understand that the matter of getting an extension of time for Australians, who have suffered from using or who have used these Dalkon shields, to make claims in the United States would involve legislation in the United States. I gather that is extremely unlikely to be forthcoming. I will hurry up the answer to that question and I believe that it should be hurried up. As to the subject of child accident prevention, the Child Accident Prevention Foundation comes under my portfolio. That organisation was established by the previous Government and its activities have continued. I have three nominees on the board. It has established or is in the process of establishing a statistical program for the collection of information on accidents occurring to children and the continuing collection of such data. I am sure that the Foundation is co-operating with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons which has been involved in this area for a considerable time. I can get exact information for Senator Vigor; I do not have it now. As to pharmaceuticals, there is always the problem of side effects and damaging effects of such products. Although I am not trying to say that everything that can be done is being done in Australia, I would point out that Australia's record in this regard is very good. The record of this country in detecting connections between drugs and sometimes between diseases with long term effects is one of which we can be proud. One remembers the problem with thalidomide, and in a different context but in a similar way much earlier the detection of the connection between rubella and the longer side effects of that illness in this country. I also think that this country's record of safety and the safe assessment of drugs before they come into use is pretty good. It is true that we have the advantage of sometimes being able to pick up on information that has come from overseas, particularly from the United States, but our record is pretty good. I dare say that it can be improved. I suppose that it is a matter of weighing up how much it can be improved for each dollar expended. If one could guarantee that every dollar expended saved $20, I would certainly look at it, as I am sure the Government would. I would seek detailed information on that from Senator Vigor if the Department of Health has not got that information already. I would point out, as one must always point out in these circumstances, that the situation will never arise where all drugs used are inherently safe-drugs with no side or undesirable effects. Every drug in use has some undesirable effect. If it has not, it is not of much use or is of no use at all. But I agree with Senator Vigor that we cannot lower our guard in this area. If there is an argument for much greater expenditure in this area providing much greater results, I am sure the Government will consider it. I shall refer all these matters to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.08) —Following on from what the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) said, I would like some indication of the Government's policy on expediting the requirement for disclosure of pharmacologically active substances on labelling of foodstuffs. For example, quite a few problems are caused for people who may be allergic to caffeine if it is not a requirement that caffeine, which is included in a number of drinks, be declared. There is also the problem that a vast number of names are used for sugar substances which are very harmful to certain people in the community who may have diabetes. Currently the uniform food labelling legislation seems to be slightly bogged down. When is it likely we shall get any new answers on this area, and when are we likely to see before us some action to make certain that those minorities who are allergic to particular substances are protected by proper labelling of food products? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(6.10) —The State and Federal Ministers have been looking at a model food Act. As Senator Vigor knows, that legislation has now been adopted into law in several States: Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. The Australian Health Ministers Conference a few weeks ago adopted the uniform food standards now being circulated to the States for signature by the Premiers of those States, and the legislative changes will be introduced to put them into place. I am not familiar with the exact details of what is involved in those new standards. I hope that it will mean the listing of all pharmacologically active substances on the labels of food stuffs. That means, of course, the labelling of all the content in all foodstuffs because there is nothing that is not pharmacologically active in this world, not even air. Proposed expenditures agreed to. GROUP C Department of Finance Proposed expenditure, $3,606,000 Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Proposed expenditure, $15,388,000 Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $24,847,000 Department of Primary Industry Proposed expenditure, $3,298,000 Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $34,996,000 Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.12) —I have only one question. It relates to primary industry. Is it the Federal Government's intention to buy into the meat inspection of export produce in Victoria? In Victoria at the moment the State does the inspection and the cost is 50c per unit. The Federal Department of Primary Industry's costs power unit is $1.60. We can really understand why the industry in Victoria will be very concerned if the Federal Government takes over those inspections and the States back off. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(6.13) —We have a bit of a problem here because the information I have been given very firmly is that yes, the Federal Department of Primary Industry and the Federal Government indicated in discussions with Victoria that it intends to complete a national meat inspection network with the Feds taking over in Victoria. The advice I am given is that that will result in net savings to the producers in Victoria because the Federal Government has a policy of 50 per cent cost recovery and the Victorian Government has a policy of 100 per cent cost recovery. That is completely contrary to the figures Senator Walters gave me. I accept that. I do not know any details other than that. I doubt whether Senator Walsh knows any closer details than that. But as Senator Walters's figures and the figures I have just been given by the Department are absolutely and completely inconsistent, we must find an answer and give the honourable senator the information. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.14) —I will give the Department some additional figures. I am told that from the 12-month period ending March 1985 it cost the Federal Department of Primary Industry $13.7m to inspect 8.6 million units slaughtered in Victoria; in the same period it cost the State Department of Agriculture $8.4m to process 16.4 million units. So the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) is telling me that it will be cheaper. It will be interesting because I am told that the Federal cost is three times greater in real terms. I have given the 50c figure versus the $1.60. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.15) —I want to comment on the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Since there has been no response from the Government over the months I specifically ask whether the Government agrees with its advisory body the Economic Planning Advisory Council, EPAC, when that body said: Australia will have to learn to live with unemployment levels of 8 to 9 per cent over the next 10 years. That figure was published and as far as I know there has been no refutation of that from the Government. I assume that the Government supports that view. It it does, enormous detriment will be suffered by the whole Australian community, particularly the young. This Department has a primary and important job in employment, as its name suggests, with regard to the young, the school leavers, the people between 15 and 25 years of age who today constitute such a very large number of the unemployed and whose numbers grow as the years go by. If EPAC is right, there will be a growing section of this community which is alienated by unemployment. It is, of course, an intolerable situation. The people of Australia ought to be entitled to know whether their children, now at school, face the opportunity of getting jobs in the future, or whether one fifth of them or more-sometimes it is as much as a quarter of them-will be unemployed. That number will be very significant as we build up the volume of people who become unemployable, not through any lack of motivation of their own but because of the situation. What has happened is that over the years the unemployment level has crept up on us in a very big way. It is the fashion in this chamber to try to score points off each other on what happened in a particular term of office. So let me now take in round figures, say, the last 15 or 16 years from 1970 to now, a period of time roughly divided-something like nine years in government for this side of the chamber and something like seven years in government for the other side-so that no particular inequality arises in terms of opportunities to do things. The fact is that there has grown up steadily over that period an insidious situation of entrenched unemployment. For the first three years of that 15 or 16 years, under a Liberal government the unemployment averaged about 1.3 per cent. It rose in the next three years to 3.1 per cent in 1975, averaging just slightly less than 2 per cent. It rose in the following seven years, averaging something like 5.8 per cent. In the three to four years of the Labor government it averaged about 8.8 per cent. It is true that at the beginning of 1983 when the change occurred under a Liberal government unemployment was in the order of 9 per cent. But over the period of that Government it had been on average 5.8 per cent. The fact is that-and I do not want to score points, I want to deal with realities-over a period of something like four years we have had a chronic situation of about 9 per cent unemployment, and the Advisory Council, heavily influenced by the business world, the employer community, is saying that this is the picture for the next 10 years. I have to say that in common with the rest of the community I would find this intolerable. We have had examples by both the former Government and this Government of youth employment schemes. We have had some good schemes and some very bad schemes indeed but they are no substitute for jobs. I remind the Committee that when I was Minister for Education I sought to find the nature of those who were unemployed-the young chronic unemployed aged between 15 and 19 years who had been unemployed for more than three months and were unlikely to be employed. Was this due to a lack of basic skills? What was the reason? Over a period of some years a program called the education program for unemployed youth-EPUY-brought from expert evaluations the clear statement that there is a lack of basic skills but that is not the real situation. These young people have an unduly low self esteem, they undervalue themselves and they have low motivation. They are worried that nobody appears to be concerned about them and that situation is a tragedy if it persists in the community as a whole. When speaking earlier today on other departments I spoke about the fact that we are costing ourselves out of employment. I said that our manufacturing and ancillary service industries were the basic industries that provided jobs and now manufacturing is shrinking month by month. Despite further protection of the dollar-another tariff amounting to 30 per cent or more of currencies other than the American currency-the flood of imports is competing adversely against manufacturing and there is no sign that the notorious J-curve is turning up. That in itself is a major tragedy because it supports EPAC. As a nation we have let costs get out of hand. I remind myself that in an attempt to score off each other there is a tendency to point to the fact that when this Government took over inflation was running at a considerably high figure. At that stage the consumer price index was 11.5 per cent. We should look at that figure against the background during that period. Let me read a quotation. It states: We know inflation is at 16 per cent and we believe it's quite likely to reach 20 per cent in the next two quarters. But we will not indulge in a trade-off in wages for some conjectural reduction in inflation. This was said in August 1974 and the speaker was the present Prime Minister, Mr Hawke. He was then both the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party and President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In the following year inflation moved to 17 1/2 per cent. Again I do not raise this matter simply to point score. There are tons of opportunities for that. I raise it to show that over this period very bad misjudgments have been made in terms of getting this country on to a balance where employment could develop. In the period 1973-74-barely 18 months-wages rose some 37 per cent. However, one has to draw attention to the fact that in 1981-82 wages rose as well. Since figures are frequently given, let me say that in the three years 1973-74 to 1975-76 wages under the Whitlam Government rose by 55.3 per cent. In the last three years of the Fraser Government they rose by 39.4 per cent. Thirty-nine point four per cent is nothing to be proud of. As I have said, I am not raising this matter to point score; I am raising it because over a vast period-some 16 years-a series of defects has been inbuilt into this system which has now culminated in a chronic state of unemployment. Indeed the kind of statement that the then President of the ACTU made is the very kind of statement that Charlie Fitzgibbon is now commenting against, that is, it was a statement of confrontation, a statement of class conflict. I have again risen on this important matter simply to urge the Committee and the people of Australia to move away from what Mr Fitzgibbon says has been a confrontation nation, to move away from poking our tongue out at each other, to move away from believing that every trade union is a bad trade union-certainly one, two or three can be bad when they become unduly militant and unduly demanding-and to try to understand that management and labour have to co-operate, they have to get an understanding together if we are to employ people. So it is no more a question or who was right and who was wrong. The past only shows us the stones we stumbled over at the very most. The point we are at now is again one on which I commented today; it is a point where, if we simply make the judgment that we can do this or that as a palliative we will pay a tremendous penalty over the next five to 10 years. We ought to be looking now at moving from the situation in Australia in which 600,000 unemployed and many more who have not registered are suffering and moving to a situation in which Australia can, in its manufacturing and service industries, find suitable jobs, not just makeshift jobs, for the young and the not so young and to the real standard of living of Australians which, instead of declining badly, shall be maintained and rise. Those are the kinds of situations about which nothing I have seen in the so-called employment policies of the Government the so-called economic policies of the Government, does anything to achieve. I said today and I repeat that if the mini-summit of 5 June were to reach some rational decisions on the question of superannuation, the productivity claim, and some kind of wage discounting and even if a substantial saving were made in the Budget rather than a fiddle by deferring taxes, that will not, in itself, put Australia in a competitive situation. It will help; everything will help but the fundamental point will be reached when we sit down as people-this has not happened-when employer and employee groups yarn, with governments on the `sidelines' to see what they can do to get an understanding of how to increase productivity, how to get costs down and how to work together. In other words, the message I have to say is that it is time to put confrontation aside; it is time to get together not in some little accord between government and the trade union movement but between people at the work face and to get a flexibility that will increase jobs, get productivity up get costs down and not mean a major decline in employment and in living standards. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(6.29) —I want to address my comments to the Department of the Treasury and, in particular, to the Australian Taxation Office. First and foremost I ask the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to advise us how many staff will be engaged by the Taxation Office to look after and to control the proposed fringe benefits tax when it comes into force. Senator Walsh —It has not been decided yet. Senator MESSNER —Thank you. Surely the Minister must be able to give us some estimates since so much other work has been done. Will the Minister also advise us how many staff will be engaged by the Taxation Office to oversee the capital gains tax? Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator MESSNER —In the period of about 15 seconds I had before the dinner break I raised questions with the Minister for Finance about the assessment by the Australian Taxation Office, as part of the estimates for the Department of Treasury, of its likely staff allocations to control and manage the implementation and recurrent activities of the fringe benefits tax to be implemented from 1 July. I hope I did not hear the Minister correctly when I heard him answer across the table sotto voce that he thought that no decision had been taken on that matter as yet. It being some five weeks until the commencement of the law, it seems improbable that, firstly, no staff would have been recruited at this point to undertake those duties and, secondly, that no staff would already be in place working up the so-called mauve booklet which sets out the details of the fringe benefits tax and which has already been sent out to business houses throughout Australia. I would like to press that matter with the Minister and seek to determine from him the number of people within the Taxation Office, and any other department for that matter, who are currently undertaking activities in establishing the machinery for operating the fringe benefits tax and, in addition, the number of people required to operate the capital gains tax which, of course, started from 19 September 1985. I wish to find out how they have been dealing with returns and with inquiries from the public and how they have been handling the machinery for that tax since then. Secondly, I wish to ask whether the Minister can tell us the cost so far to the Australian taxpayer of the implementation of the fringe benefits tax and of circulating the booklet to the X number of business houses throughout Australia that have received it in the last few days. I would like very much to be informed about that. My third major question that I would like the Minister to answer is the estimate of the cost to the business community of complying with the details of the fringe benefits tax. We all know that business houses all over Australia will now be required to keep very extensive records and in unprecedented great detail. One might even say that the extent to which people will have to go to keep the details of individual motor vehicle transactions and/or activities is absolute madness and will obviously add substantially to the cost of operating a business. Will the Government please give us an estimate of the cost to the regulation of business of the implementation of the fringe benefits tax as that ought to be part of any financial impact study that is announced by the Government when implementing any new proposal. While on that theme, we would also like to know in what detail this information can be provided for the various parts of the fringe benefits tax. Of course, the tax will apply to motor vehicles, home loans and remote area housing-and I am sure the Minister knows of other categories also. We would like a breakdown of the costs to industry and business generally, of the implementation of each part of that tax and to know what extra cost business will be forced to face in the light of that new tax. That is quite apart from the cost of the tax itself. Of course, we all know that those costs will add substantially to the cost of running a business and must drive even higher the costs imposed on what is already known as an uncompetitive business scene in Australia compared with the rest of the world. I would like to know how the Government can justify putting such extensive cost loadings on to business at this time. The last point that I would like to know about relates to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 which is currently for debate in the House of Representatives and which was introduced last Thursday. In clause 4 there is reference to the waiver of certain secrecy provision by the Commissioner of Taxation in terms of providing information to the Secretary to the Treasury in order that the Secretary can use that information in his apparent new role as a regulator of superannuation schemes. As we have absolutely no information from the Government on what the regulation machinery for those superannuation schemes might be, we are very interested to know what the Government proposes by way of imposing further costs upon business as a result of those regulations. We also find it very disturbing-this will emerge during the debate on that Bill, particularly when it comes to the Senate-that the Government seeks to waive certain secrecy provisions in those circumstances. Clearly, it rises almost to the height of criminal negligence that there has been no announcement and no legislation in respect of the requirements and regulations that presumably will be laid down for superannuation. While on the subject of superannuation, I would like also to find out what progress the Government has made towards the implementation of the guidelines for superannuation schemes that were announced last December. They are somewhat incomplete, certainly without the business community filling out the great detail that was required. It is now at least six months on from the time of the original announcement and we ought to have those answers. I suppose that those guidelines and regulations that were announced at that time will be the subject of legislation in due course. I would like to know in what kind of legislation they will be-whether they will be the subject of amendments to the taxation law, whether they will be the subject of a new legislative process established for the creation of a new regulatory authority, whether those regulations are to be attached to, say, the Office of the Life Insurance Commissioner and whether special circumstances will be taken into account to implement the so-called safety net principle and to address the problems outlined in the guidelines in respect of public servants who are already receiving superannuation and their situation under the new superannuation arrangements. The final question that I would like to ask is: Am I right in assuming that the Government has given up the idea of attempting to provide for the preservation of superannuation benefits to an age beyond 55 years and that it will not attempt to implement preservation to age 55, or to implement early vesting in superannuation schemes for schemes other than those-- Senator Walsh —Do you mean vesting and preservation, or just vesting? Senator MESSNER —I mean preservation first and vesting at an early time for superannuation schemes other than those which are contemplated under the arrangements with the trade union movement. In other words, I refer to superannuation schemes run by the public sector or in existence in the private sector. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(8.11) —Senator Messner asked a lot of questions most of which had nothing to do with the Supplementary Estimates. However, I will be lenient and will answer those parts which I can. On the Estimates, Senator Messner asked about Australian Taxation Office staff. In this year's Budget provision has been made for an additional 55 staff, to the average operative staffing level, for the planning and implementation of tax reform in general. The staff requirements for next year have not been settled. There have been preliminary discussions on those staff requirements. Senator Messner also mentioned recruitment in the ATO. I do not know for certain but I expect that the ATO will recruit staff continuously because staff leave as well as come into the Taxation Office all the time. Leaving aside for a moment the tax reforms, staff numbers have been decreased at this stage. There will be some increase later because the various elements of the tax reform package will require extra staff. Senator Messner asked about information and the booklets that are being sent to potential fringe benefit taxpayers. I do not have specific information on that but, from memory, a total cost both past and prospective for providing information on the tax reform package is of the order of $2.5m to $3m. That is only my recollection but I think that the figure falls within that range. Senator Messner asked about the cost to the private sector of administering the fringe benefits tax. The answer is that it would be anything from zero to almost any figure one can think of because anyone in the private sector who believes that the fringe benefit tax is administratively too onerous to bear has the option of cashing out the fringe benefit. The administrative cost would then fall to zero. Indeed, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has stated on many occasions, it is the Government's preference that the private sector should react in that way. Senator Messner —So that you can impose the tax on the employee. Senator WALSH —If there is no fringe benefit, by definition, there will be no tax on the employer. That is an option over which the private sector has complete control. If the administrative requirements are too onerous, the employer can cash out the fringe benefits tax. The Government would be happier if that were done because, firstly, it would restore a system of operation of the taxation law to the way it was intended in the first place and from which it should never have been permitted to deviate to the extent that it has, where employees are paid in cash not in kind for the services they perform for the employer. It would have the additional benefit-Senator Messner should be aware of this since he has raised the question of resources and staff within the Australian Taxation Office-that no additional resources would be required in the Australian Taxation Office. Senator Messner also expressed mock alarm that the Government could contemplate doing anything as barbaric as introducing a fringe benefits tax on the private sector. The private sector has had its income increased by about $8 billion in the last 2 1/2 or 3 years. That is the extent to which profits in the private sector have risen since the middle of 1983. Compared with the position that it was then, the private sector is well able to meet that sort of cost. Moreover, in the whole tax package there are significant benefits to the private sector through the imputation system and the termination of the double taxation of company profits, first in the hands of the company and secondly in the hands of the shareholder to the extent that the profits were distributed. Senator Messner's question about the proposed changes to section 16, the secrecy provisions, of the existing Taxation Act is one which neither I nor the officials present are able to answer. I will take it on notice and will try to get an answer from the Treasurer. On the broader question of disclosure of income, there are some countries in which personal income tax returns are public knowledge. Senator Messner —Are you advocating that here? Senator WALSH —Personally, I am very strongly in favour of it. It is not contemplated by the Government but it has a great deal going for it. I can understand why a great number of people on the honourable senator's side would be absolutely aghast at the proposition that personal income tax returns should be public knowledge. I will also take on notice the matter of guidelines for superannuation in the private sector which to some extent, if not entirely, will also be applied in the public sector. The Treasurer and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) issued them back in December. On public sector superannuation, an area for which I have some direct responsibility, I have had some discussions with the public service unions and have made it quite clear-to address some of the specific questions raised by Senator Messner-that so far as I am concerned or the Government is concerned the Government is strongly opposed to public sector superannuation being taken in a lump sum form other than to the extent to which it is already available; that is, the employee's contribution. Commonwealth employees who contribute to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme and leave the service prior to retirement under existing provisions will be able to preserve that entitlement. There may be some extention of that facility but there will be no payments at least until they reach the age of 55. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.20) —I raise the matter of the $12.8m which the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, lost as a result of foreign exchange movements and the refusal of the Department of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to allow the ABC to take forward exchange cover. I particularly refer to the misleading and, one could say, deceptive response the Minister gave to a question I asked on 16 April. During the hearing of Estimates Committee C, I asked the ABC the following question on notice: Is it possible to have your estimates for this year of what your overseas expenditures will be for 1985-86 in Australian dollar terms, in US dollars, in pounds sterling and in other currencies? The point of the question was clearly to establish what the cost would have been for covering, in those specific currencies, the ABC's commitment. That showed some prescience on my part because I no doubt recognised that the Minister would seek to be misleading in the reply he gave to me the following day when I asked him the question I did in this place. Unfortunately, although the ABC has replied to the question it has not in effect answered it. I do not have, and Estimates Committee C has not been favoured with, a response which states what are the exposures, the total purchases, in Australian dollar terms, in US dollars, in pounds sterling and in other currencies. Of course the yen is important in that respect. The ABC has given us-I am grateful to the ABC for providing the volume of information it has provided, although it is not what I asked for-some indication of the extent of the sort of problem that emerges. For example, in regard to television program purchases, the ABC says: The amount sought for TV program purchases is $6.4m which is the difference between the original budget of $19.5m and the total amounts payable-- that is, following the devaluation- of $25.9m. That represents a 32 per cent currency loss on that commitment. Had the purchase of those programs been negotiated in pounds sterling-the suggestion made in the information provided to us is that for the bulk of programs the cost was in pounds sterling-the cost of covering them would have been about 5 per cent or $1m compared to $6.4m. Yet this Minister misled the Senate by saying that the cost of covering could well exceed the $12.8m loss. That kind of misleading of the Senate gets us nowhere. It is also unfortunate that we have not been provided with the outstanding currency commitments at the time so that we could provide this Minister with an indication of the extent to which he has misled the Senate. There is no possible, conceivable way that this Minister-who no doubt is having a quick drag on a fag because he needs one, I would imagine-can tell us that covering this kind of commitment could have cost anything like $12.8m. His attempt to mislead us is absolutely disgraceful. The fact is the ABC has advised us that the bulk of capital equipment would have been in yen. It said: Of the total Capital Budget of $45.46m, $28.826m relates to the acquisition of plant and equipment, the majority of which comes from Japan and consequently is hit hardest by the significant devaluations of the Australian dollar against the Japanese yen. I simply want to know the facts of this currency exposure so that we can provide to the Minister a response which would enable him to be accurate in this place and not to fob us off as he did. I quote from page 1776 of the Senate Hansard of 16 April. The Minister said: Nobody knows what the cost would have been of taking out the forward cover for the particular dates on which the delivery of the equipment and programs was due. It may well have been more than $12.8m . . . Bunkum! Rubbish! At no stage were any figures capable of being misused by anyone with integrity to come out with that kind of answer. I have checked with several money market operators in Sydney as to what would have been the cost of cover. Basically it ranges between 5 and 7 per cent, which is the interest rate differential. If the Minister for Finance does not know that that is the way one establishes the forward exchange cover cost, he has no right to lecture any member of the Senate in the way he lectured me. He referred to me as ineducable on this matter because I said that I wanted to know that facts instead of receiving the usual personal abuse from the Minister which, of course, went on for a page or so. This is only one of the matters that concern me immensely. I also asked the Minister at the time whether other departments had suffered losses in exactly the same way as the ABC had suffered-a $12.8m loss, which on the face of it might have cost the ABC a couple of million dollars to avoid if it had taken forward cover. In other words, there was probably a net loss of around $10m because the Minister's Department would not accept the ABC's strong request to be allowed to forward cover. The Minister tried to say that back in 1984 the ABC made a sort of hesitant request. But the officers from the ABC clearly indicated to the Estimates Committee that there was a firm, strong and determined request in the middle of 1985-I think it was May 1985-to be allowed forward cover. The Minister's Department took until January, until after the horse had bolted, to realise that its pennypinching attitude was a pound foolish attitude. In other words, it lost money for the ABC and because of its attitude was required to seek additional funding through the Supplementary Estimates to enable the ABC to do no more than it would have been able to do had there not been the devaluation which, I mention in passing, occurred largely as a result of the Government's inept handling of the inevitable fall in the terms of trade which was totally forecast in Budget Statement No. 2. The Government was advised by the Treasury in Statement No. 2 of the Budget Papers that there would be a serious deterioration in the terms of trade over the coming year and that as a result the Government would have to maintain a fairly tight hand. It noted that there would have to be an inflation constraint, which this Government decided to ignore in its usual profligate manner. The other answer I sought when asking the Minister the question which he sought to mislead this chamber in answering was whether there were any other instances of requests being held up or rejected by his Department. He said that he was unaware of any: There are none that I know of which are presently under consideration or which have been rejected. I will check that. It is now getting towards the end of May. I wonder whether the Minister has got around to checking it. If so, will he be courteous enough to advise the Senate of the consequences of that checking? It seems to be a lengthy amount of time for the fruits of such endeavours to ripen. I ask the Minister whether, in the circumstances prevailing then, he will provide what could be described as a more accurate response to the question I asked him on 16 April about the effective cost of his decision. I ask the Minister to make arrangements for the ABC to provide a response in terms of United States dollars, pounds sterling and other currencies-in particular, the yen-in respect of their exposure so that we can do the sums for him. I repeat the question as to whether or not any other bodies have suffered such losses because the Minister or his Department has denied them the opportunity for cover. I would like to make a couple of points about the community employment program of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I noticed in the annual report of the Australia Council which, I remind the Committee, spends something like $43m a year, the comment that 1984-85 was, above anything else, the year of the residency. I quote from the report: Probably to a greater extent than at any other time in our history, governments at all levels supported individual artists and teams working in community contexts. This was a result not just of the Board's-- that is, the Community Arts Board- actions (whose support of such activities has almost tripled, in real terms, since 1982-83)- which represents almost a quadrupling in money terms- but also of the Council-wide artists-in-community scheme, the Community Employment Programs (CEP) run by Council and by the Victorian Ministry for the Arts and also many independently initiated CEP and other projects. In these circumstances, and in view of complaints from people in the arts area that more money has been spent in Australia last year and this year on arts funding through the CEP than by the Australia Council under the Department of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), I ask whether the Minister would advise the Committee of the total funding of arts through the CEP, which is a non-arts program, in the past two years. I ask whether the Minister would provide us with information, which we are finding it difficult to get through the normal channels, on where that money has gone and the details of the projects. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(8.32) —While on the subject of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, I wish to make some remarks on the vacancy which has existed for some weeks in the chairmanship of the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. When does the Government intend to fill that vacancy? I ask the question against the background that for the past several years the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, our national media outlet, has been the subject of widespread criticism from very diverse sections of the community. Much of the criticism is justified; some of it is exaggerated. The criticism cannot be said to have been politically directed, but was a genuine attempt by those who made it, however subjectively, to point out what they saw as defects. Some alterations have been made, but I rise to speak because two things are about to happen which, depending on them and some other factors, will determine whether the future of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will take either a good or bad shape. Throughout my lifetime I have argued strongly for a vigorous, independent, well-balanced and objective national broadcasting corporation. In the weeks ahead there is a need to replace the former Chairman of the Board, Mr Myer, who retired under particular circumstances of controversy. In the months ahead the whole Board will come up for re-election and the rumour is that everybody is for the execution. There has been some difficulty in terms of the ability of the managing director-I do not reflect on his capacity-to carry out the duties assigned to him. There is also an ingredient of controversy as to what constitutes fair representation of employee's viewpoints, representation of employees on the Board and an approach which could be considered to be worker controlled. Unless these matters are faced and dealt with frankly and objectively, the future of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will remain in turmoil. We need a first class chairman, a person with breadth of vision, an ability to manage the Board and to know the relationship of his Board with the managing director and the relationship of the managing director with the staff. It is clear that we need somebody with those administrative abilities, but also with views on the broad cultural nature of Australia and what a national media should do. When we choose the Board I urge that we do not repeat what I think was a disaster last time. A pretence was made to offer the Opposition a choice, to give some suggestions as to who might be favoured over others. I may be wrong in my recollection, but I think that in the need to choose seven, nine names were given. That of course is a mockery of choice. If there is to be an attempt to get some bipartisanship, I hope that a breadth of names will be given so that the Opposition is not just given lip service, but there can be a dialogue in terms of the choice of people. Indeed, it could well be suggested that names could be invited. I do not reflect upon the present Board, but we need a balance of people who are representing across the spectrum the nature of Australia. I do not believe that the present Board reflects that spectrum at all, but I do not cast any reflection upon the present managing director. The fundamental problems of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation over the decades have been caused by a form of confrontation between management and staff and the inability of management to manage for fundamental reasons. Firstly, the Broadcasting Corporation has particular characteristics; it has both administrative and creative people. One of the difficulties has been caused by the tendency to take creative people when they are young, to put them into a Public Service type of situation and to take them over the decades still as creative people until they retire. This is no reflection on them at all; they are caught in a Public Service niche in which they cannot manoeuvre and which offers no opportunity for other things. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation should provide the ability for people to get promotion, if that is their choice, in other areas of the Commonwealth Public Service. Management should have the ability not just to move people sideways, although in a relatively small organisation that is a desirable thing, but also to give opportunities for promotion. Equally, management should look to see how much of the creative operations can be done by contract, which would lessen the need for people to be in a rigid, fixed niche from which they cannot expand, but in which they are frustrated. Much of the trouble of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been caused by frustration of staff. Although the new Australian Broadcasting Corporation legislation did not provide for the appointment of a staff member to the Board, the Corporation went ahead and did that. I do not quarrel with that. I think, from memory, that that has been adjusted by legislation. As I understand it-I do not reflect on any person-that person on the Board ought to be conceived, as with any other Board member, as being essentially a part time Board member and for most of his or her time an employee of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation carrying out his or her specific duties as an employee. In fact, the very essence of having an employee representative depends on that happening. Over a considerable period other Board members have been temporary-that is, they have come along for a few hours a week or a fortnight-whereas the staff member has had virtually no other appointment at all, so we have had the anomaly whereby one member of the Board has been full time. Again I am not reflecting on the staff-the staff itself has the ability to cast up who it wants as its representative-but it seems to me fundamental that a staff representative ought to emanate from a job and have the same part time attitude as other Board members. I believe that in every organisation it is vital that the views of staff be capable of being effectively transmitted to management and to the board-that is very desirable, not only by means of the staff member on the board, but by direct consultation by management and the board itself with staff-but, if there were attempts at worker control by putting people into fundamental positions for either doctrinal or ideological reasons, that would be a bad thing. In any reform of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation the management and the Board should be able to ensure that there is no such rigidity in terms of partial or total worker control; that there is a first class exchange between the employees, who deserve to be able to participate in such exchange, and management and the Board; and that there is part time employee representation on the Board itself. By saying these things I am not striving to create some kind of organisation that would suit me or somebody else, or suit James McClelland and his other 13 signatories; I am hoping that the concept of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation under the old Act will be achieved and that it will be given independence, not to take libertine roles, but to pursue comprehensive and objective programs free of political pressures or any other kinds of pressures. Independence does not give a libertine characteristic; it exists and a statutory corporation is valuable only if it understands the spirit of independence and takes the heavy responsibility that it bears by having that independence. So, fundamentally, we need to try through the Chairman, through the Board, through the Managing Director's ability to manage and through the way that the staff interleaves and expresses its views with others, to create a Corporation that is viable. One of the strange things that happens in this Parliament is that whenever anyone comments about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation it usually results in a tirade of abuse from the other side, which says that one is trying to pressure it. I just hope that my remarks will not be taken in that kind of context. Nothing that I have said is aimed at giving advantage politically to anyone. I hope it will give advantage to no one. I do hope that, if we are to have a highly expensive and substantially large national media organisation involved in television and radio, it will function in terms of the concept under which the general community expects it to function, that we will not have again those years of bitter criticism and turmoil that we have just passed through, that we will not have sudden resignations of chairmen of the Board, that we will have a balanced Board, that management will have the ability to manage and that we will have a good relationship between staff and others and there will be within the staff an ability to be creative and that creativity will be drawn upon and there will be an ability on the administrative side to get promotion. If we take those things to heart, it will be of benefit to the whole of Australia. I ask the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), if it is within his competence, to let us know when it is likely that a new Chairman of the Board will be appointed and when it is likely that a new Board will be formed. Is consultation with the Opposition contemplated, and will that consultation be on a broader basis than before? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(8.46) —I should reply to a couple of the points raised. Senator Sir John Carrick referred to the vacancy in the Chairman's position on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board, which is well known, and asked me a number of questions arising from that. I do not know whether he was putting in a bid to get the job himself, but if that is what he was looking to do I will pass that on to the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy. I do not know when he plans to make a recommendation about the filling of the position or whether he has any particular person in mind. I do not think I could give any undertaking to respond to the latter but, as to the former, I will try to get an answer on when he intends to fill the position. As to consultation, I would expect him to do the same as he did on the previous occasion when the Board was appointed. I am not trying to have a shot at Senator Sir John Carrick, because I think he was being fairly objective about all this and, if I remember correctly, he explicitly dissociated himself from any criticism of the Board itself, but it ought to be noted that the Board which this Government appointed did include a former senator, Neville Bonner, who, of course, was a politician from the other side of politics, not from the Labor side. So Mr Duffy ought at least to be given credit for having been, if I may say so, more objective in a political sense about appointments to the Board than most previous Ministers have been. I cannot remember when any Liberal Minister appointed a Labor politician who had been out of Parliament for only two months to an ABC Board position. Perhaps I am wrong, but I certainly do not remember it. Senator Michael Baume asked what was the total funding to arts activities through the community employment program. I do not know. I do not know whether it is possible to extract that information easily but I will pass that request on to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). Senator Baume also raised the question again of foreign exchange cover and the ABC. I want to make a number of observations about that. Firstly, as to his specific question about the foreign exchange exposure that the ABC had, it was aggregated in dollars, pounds sterling, yen and other currencies. I am advised it would take about a week to disaggregate those totals. Senator Michael Baume —Rubbish. Senator WALSH —It is not rubbish. I have a note from the officials sitting here and they advise me it would take about a week to disaggregate that. If the honourable senator wants to accuse them of being liars, he can go ahead and do so, but I will not do it on the basis of absolutely no evidence. For the period from about the end of January until the end of June the ABC has taken out forex cover, but against its yen exposure only. On the broader question of hedging against foreign exchange risks, one very important observation should be made: The Government follows a general policy of being its own insurer, including its own insurer against foreign exchange risks. The ABC, of course, is a Budget funded agency and is not a department of state. Therefore, it is in a somewhat different relationship to a department of state. The ABC made an application to hedge its foreign exchange risks. It is an important decision for a government to make whether to allow a significant agency-the ABC in terms of its Budget appropriation is a very important agency-to break that precedent of the Government and its agencies being their own insurers. There are, I think, pretty obvious reasons why a government per se would be reluctant to hedge its foreign exchange risks or any of its other insurance risks. The Government is such a large entity that that action in itself could affect the foreign exchange rate. Therefore, as far as I am aware, all governments have adopted the policy in general that government is its own insurer. Its very size makes it safer for the Government to be its own insurer than for any private firm, even the largest, to be its insurer. The ABC made an application to hedge against its foreign exchange risks and that application was ultimately agreed to, belatedly, says Senator Michael Baume. Whether this is a government or a private entity, at the time a decision is made whether to take out foreign exchange exposure cover or not nobody knows whether in the end they will be winners or losers as a result of that decision. Nobody can know at that stage whether they will be winners or losers. In the particular case which Senator Michael Baume has tried to pick on, with the wisdom of hindsight at particular days and irrespective of what the mix of that aggregated exposure figure in United States dollars, pounds sterling or other currencies may be, against all of those currencies I think the Australian dollar depreciated in the relevant period. With the wisdom of hindsight, and with the knowledge of what the forward exchange cover was, it is possible to calculate whether it is a winner or a loser, but at the time the decision was made whether to hedge or not, nobody could know. Hindsight is a great advantage. In retrospect, although the figures have not been disaggregated, my expectation would be that the Government and the ABC would have been better off if foreign exchange hedging had been taken out on a particular date, but then so would all the gullible investors, who did their money when Patrick Partners defaulted on their liabilities, have been better off if they had known that Patrick Partners was going to default on their liabilities, and they had not put their money into Patrick Partners. I apologise to Senator Michael Baume. I did say that I would check whether other agencies in a similar position to the ABC had asked for foreign exchange cover. I do not have an answer to that yet. I will try to get that but I do know that so far as a department of state is concerned, namely the Department of Defence, that Department, having a very heavy foreign exchange risk liability, has been a heavy loser because of the depreciation of the Australian dollar over the last 12 or 15 months. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.55) —I thank the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) for his undertaking to at last give me the answer to that question about the involvement of other bodies in foreign exchange cover. I refer to a simple question, which I do not believe is capable of misinterpretation, which was asked of an organisation at an Estimates Committee hearing. I repeat the question: Is it possible to have your estimates for this year of what your overseas expenditures will be for 1985-86 in Australian dollar terms, in US dollars, in pounds sterling and in other currencies? That question seems to me to be capable of being answered. If the answer is `It would take a week to disaggregate the figures and that that expenditure is unnecessary and not warranted in order to inform the Senate', I think the Senate is entitled to that response from the body involved in answer to the question on notice. If the body involved misunderstood the question, that seems to me to reflect an unfortunate inability to read English. In fact, if it does take a week to disaggregate the figures, this seems to suggest to me an extraordinary way of running an organisation. If the ABC was not aware, and is not aware now, of what its exposure was in terms of pounds sterling, US dollars or Japanese yen at the time it made its request to the Minister or at the time it was providing us with the information of what the Australian dollar increases have been, how on earth did it work out its figures? It seems to me extraordinary and I must say that it has all the appearance of some kind of cover up when we are not being told, firstly, the proper answer to a question raised on 15 April, and secondly, that we are now told that it would take a week to disaggregate the figures, particularly when we recognise that such a disaggregation would provide us with the ammunition to demonstrate to the Minister for Finance the extent to which he misled this Senate when he claimed in a ludicrous statement that it was possible that the cost of forward exchange cover may well have been more than $12.8m. He has now admitted that in hindsight the Government and the ABC would probably have done better by a minimum of $10.5m. When we get the figures, if in fact they are capable of being got from this Government, which seems much more interested in covering up the truth than revealing it-if it has nothing to hide it should give us the figures-we will be able to say exactly what that cost of cover would have been and we will be able to demonstrate the falsity of the answer given to me on 16 April. The other matter that I think certainly deserves some attention is this question of community employment program funding. In addition to what the Minister has just done to us in relation to the ABC-providing a non-answer and saying that it would take a week to give us the answer, which, as I said, astounds me-we have not been able to get many answers out of the Government on CEP funding. I thank the Minister for saying that he is going to do something about it. Senator Walsh —One of your colleagues wants to know what Neil Brown's car bill is. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I am glad the Minister interjected on that matter because the Minister knows perfectly well that, in the matter of the administrative mess his Government has got itself into over car bills, his Government is falsely attributing costs not only to Opposition leaders and deputy leaders but also to other people, including the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I remind the Minister sitting happily there that the Prime Minister's car bill last year was $125,000. At the normal cost of hiring out a car he would be obliged to be using it 22 out of 24 hours of every day. That is clear bunkum. If the Minister wants any evidence of the administrative chaos that his Department of Finance is allowing to persist in the Department of Administrative Services, that is the classic example. If the Prime Minister spent 22 hours of every day in his motor car, I would be interested to know what he was actually doing there. The fact is that the hiring out arrangement that this Minister has been happy to allow to persist is so massively incompetent that all the rip-offs, ramps and false markings out that have now become endemic in that Department have not been halted by the Minister, who likes to talk big and act little. It is hoped that at last he will do something about this matter when he knows perfectly well that Mr Brown's car bill is totally misleading, totally false, and that he did not at any stage use anything like the amount of car time for which he has been booked out. The Minister knows that. That is the deceptive element. The Minister knows it and is prepared to keep maintaining it. Senator Walsh —Show me your evidence, and don't give me a Patrick Partners prospectus. Senator Crichton-Browne —Senator Walsh uses the shuttle and tries to disguise his costs. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The fact is that Senator Walsh drives himself or uses the shuttle, and I presume he does not want people to know where he is going. I think that is very sensible of him in the circumstances. I want to relate this question of the Government's cover-up not only tonight but its cover-up of general questions about CEP funding. This Minister sitting here has refused Mr Brown, refused the Opposition, access to CEP funding grants under the Freedom of Information Act unless the Opposition pays $400 for this particular request, and whatever else the Minister feels appropriate next time, because, he says, that in asking for details of CEP funding Mr Brown has not established that the public interest is involved. If this Minister, who was supposed, at least in Opposition, to support the concept of freedom of information, believes that it is not in the public interest for the waste and incompetence of this Government to be demonstrated, this Minister has a curious one-eyed approach to reality. The fact is that it is in his interests to find out the waste and incompetence. I know for a fact that this Minister is particularly irritated by the activities of the Waste Watch Committee because it is saying so many of the things he wishes he had the guts to come into this chamber and say. He is, as I understand it-perhaps I am giving him too much credit-keenly interested in pursuing and stopping the enormous volumes of waste that persists in his big-spending Government. This is a Government that added $2.5 billion in its first year in office to government spending and then claimed that it inherited a deficit. What incredible gall-a man who ended up with a deficit of $8 billion after adding $2.5 billion in new spending commitments. How could he have inherited a $9.6 billion deficit and end up with $8 billion after adding $2.5m? Even his mathematics does not come at that. The reality is that there is a requirement facing the Government which, when in opposition, talked of the great need for open government, of the need to provide us with information, and of the need of the Australian people to be fully informed. This Minister has used cheap tricks to prevent us getting access to information on CEP funding, and to try to denigrate us, as he did in his response to me on 16 April to questions aimed at finding the facts. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the clear suggestion he made tonight that because it would take a week to disaggregate the figures, therefore that should not be done. I suggest to him that a failure on his part to provide the Opposition with that information will simply underline his own lack of credibility in this place. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.04) —Senator Michael Baume keeps asserting that Mr Brown's car bill is not real. If he has got any evidence to back up his assertion that there are errors in it, I would be glad to receive it. In the case of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who often travels with a number of staff and is a significantly more important person than Mr Brown, I think it is common that when he goes to some place more than one car is ordered in the name of the Prime Minister. One takes the Prime Minister and the other takes some of his staff. Mr Brown's car bill fascinates not only the public but at least one member of the shadow Cabinet. There was one member of the shadow Cabinet running around last week touting for business and offering to leak yet another of the Opposition's shadow cabinet's policy documents in return for advance knowledge of Mr Brown's car bill for the latest quarter. Isn't that remarkable? Indeed, it tells us something about the value of the shadow Ministry's policies because Mr Brown's car bill for any quarter will become public knowledge, in conformity with long established custom, about a couple of weeks or three weeks after the quarter closes. But there is somebody in the shadow Ministry who is so eager to get knowledge of Mr Brown's latest car bill before anyone else does that he is willing to flog off yet another of the Opposition's shadow cabinet policies. As for Australian Broadcasting Corporation funds, Senator Michael Baume was provided with the answer to his question in Australian dollars at stated exchange rates on particular days. What he is now asking for, if I understood him correctly, is to have the liabilities in US dollars, pounds sterling, yen and whatever other currencies the ABC may have liabilities designated in. It does take quite a while to pull them out because the ABC has foreign purchases of capital equipment, purchases of programs, funding of overseas offices, hiring concert artists from overseas, overseas freight, travel, and so on, in I do not know how many currencies, but I would be surprised if they were less than five or six currencies in total spread out over seven or eight different areas. It takes a fair bit of time to get out figures for all those items. I shall see whether, on behalf of the Minister, I can get those figures for Senator Baume within a week. Senator Michael Baume —I thank the Minister for his courtesy. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.06) —While the Australian Broadcasting Corporation people are here-- Senator Walsh —Not you again! Senator VIGOR —I would like to pursue some matters with the Corporation-and this is the first time I have talked this evening while Senator Walsh has been here. I want to draw to the Committee's attention two matters that arose in the supplementary information supplied by the Corporation. The first relates to the work of the national and State advisory councils within the ABC. Many distinguished Australians make a contribution through their service on those councils. Honourable senators will be pleased to know that some of the suggestions of the councils are being implemented. The South Australian advisory council made the point that the ABC's role as a national broadcaster can only be adequately fulfilled with program contributions from the States for national networking. There has been a decentralisation of effort, particularly for Radio National. That should help to lift morale in the places away from Sydney and Melbourne. I encourage the ABC to make greater use of the skills and community contacts of those serving on the advisory councils. It is a lesson that other public bodies which have substantial contact and interaction with Australians could well take to heart. It was also interesting, in a response about the ABC's public access policies for television, to note this statement from the supplementary information distributed to senators: The ABC is, however, receptive to a request by the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association (CAAMA) for the ABC to transmit on a trial basis for CAAMA a 15 to 20 minute CAAMA-produced program on the Alice Springs NBS transmitter after ABC television transmissions have ceased for the day. Discussions are currently being held with CAAMA concerning this proposal. The response to the CAAMA proposal is indicative of the ABC's positive approach in general to the special needs of Aboriginal broadcasters and to the recommendations of the report of the task force on Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting and Communications report `Out of the Silent Land'. I understand that the project is in some jeopardy. Certainly, the ABC has an obligation to meet the special needs of Aboriginal communities in Central Australia. Production from independent sources, or from the ABC's own resources, are very expensive. I understand that $60,000 for one hour of production is not an uncommon price for production from an independent producer who may sell to the ABC. Certainly, the ABC has needed several millions of dollars to cover its additional overseas costs. As a result of the falling Australian dollar, this amount has been increased by the exchange rate changes which was the subject of this particular Supplementary Estimates claim. It is a costly business to do anything on television. I understand that CAAMA would like to see the ABC pay some limited screening rights for the material that CAAMA produces. The arrangement was, as I understand it, for a once a week radio program that started around 1980. I would like to get from the ABC people here some comment in relation to the ABC's provision for Aboriginal audiences when, in fact, in those areas they make up 20 per cent of the population or more. I would also like to know how these discussions with CAAMA are progressing. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.12) —I am interested in Senator Vigor's comment. As he said, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation this year inaugurated three short-wave radio services, in Alice Springs, in Katherine, and in Tennant Creek in particular, targeted at Aboriginal communities. The services are operated in conjunction with the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association. Discussions are continuing between the ABC and the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association. I am informed that the comments Senator Vigor asked for from the ABC officials here are that those discussions are proceeding satisfactorily. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.12) —I would also like to follow up the gobbledegook that was presented in answers to questions asked at the Estimates Committee from the Department of Communications. The matters show that there is ample room for improvement in some key areas of the Department of Communications. If mistakes are made they should be acknowledged and rectified early, before they become major problems. The particular example I have relates to the Department's embarrassment when defective notices for licence applications were withdrawn some months after being issued. Senator MacGibbon —Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. I would like you to apply standing order 406 which prohibits the reading of speeches in the Senate. I realise that that is sometimes broken in this place for major speeches, but it is never broken for Committee speeches. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —There is no point of order. Senator Vigor is asking questions and is relating to certain provisions. Senator VIGOR —I think it is quite important that I should not make the same types of mistakes as those made in giving answers to me, so I am using written material to help me in that matter. There was a clear problem in that the three notices relating to public broadcasting stations failed to specify the special purposes for which those licences were to be granted. I do not believe that we got a frank statement on that matter in the Estimates Committee hearing. Part of the answer went as follows: It was not impossible for the Tribunal to follow those processes of the new legislation, but given the propensity for some people in some parts of the broadcasting industry to make mischief and the possibility that that might occur, we thought it better to play it safe and to re-issue them once the regulations were in place. The answer failed to throw light on why it took two months to come up with this view and why the revocation came just eight days before the applications were due to close. The answer also came to the attention of the broadcasting industry. People felt that they were unfairly maligned in the answer. I would like to quote from a most constructive letter sent to me by a broadcasting executive in relation to those remarks. The letter states: The purpose of this letter is not to single the Department out for criticism, but to place some facts as to the sequence of events. The gazettal notice inviting applications appeared in early February and I am aware that within hours the Department and the Minister's office were formally advised that the notice could not be effective since they required the regulations to be in place. In addition the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal issued a cover note dated February 12th, attached to any application forms, which drew potential applicants' attention to the defect. As you would be aware, the closing date for the applications was 15th April 1986. Regrettably, action was not taken until early April to revoke the notice. It would seem to me that had the Department acted quickly then potential applicants or those wishing to make submissions would not have incurred unnecessary costs. I agree with that executive's view that the broadcasting industry acted quickly and courteously to assist the Department. He also wrote: . . . it is my understanding that the Department could not persist with the notices when the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal refused to be a party to a breach of the law. So this is quite a serious matter. In the same way the pressure being applied to the Tribunal to abandon a supplementary licence hearing in Canberra raises problems of people's rights being undermined at some late stage right throughout a process. I would like to get some sort of assurance from the Government, which has in recent days been heavily criticising calls for acts of defiance in taxation matters, that it will, in fact, abide by the law in broadcasting matters and not cut corners or infringe individuals' rights because it might have made administrative errors, or because of stubbornness or incompetence on the part of some officers. What is likely to happen in pursuing this matter? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.18) —I suppose one of the easiest things to do in this place is to get up and make the sorts of assertions about individuals in the Public Service that Senator Vigor has been making. I have no one here who can provide me with the detailed answers that he needs. I can, I suppose, only hazard a guess that one of the reasons for the Department taking so long to answer the questions is that it was spending an inordinate amount of money and man hours dealing with endless questions from people like Senator Vigor. I will, however, seek from the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and the Department of Communications answers to the questions put by Senator Vigor today. I am not seeking from them answers to the assertions he has made about individuals in the Department of Communications. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.19) —I have some very short questions for the Department of Finance. During the Estimates Committee proceedings of September 1980 one government department indicated that its objective was to pay accounts within two weeks. I ask the Minister what his policy is and what the policy of the current Government is on the matter of paying bills and whether the Department of Finance has any guidelines in this area, and whether the Department itself acts upon complaints from suppliers or contractors when they have not been paid for several months. I certainly had such instances reported to me. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.20) —There have been a couple of specific complaints which have been reported to me which I have followed up. Some of those complaints have been reported directly, I might add. I cannot remember all of the details, but certainly in one case a department which authorised the expenditure had not properly completed the forms which are necessary before the Department of Finance can under the law make payments. One case for some secretarial services took more than three months. If I recall correctly, the Department of Finance has an objective of writing cheques-I am not sure of the period-within one week or three working days for the payment of accounts presented to it in the proper form by other departments. The general objective of the Government so far as I am concerned is to pay such accounts as soon as possible. Usually-I think this is because of Audit Act requirements-the departments which have incurred the expenditure are required to submit the documentation for payment according to an approved form to the Department of Finance and then the Department of Finance authorises payment. I will check on my recollection of the Department of Finance's guidelines on this matter. I think that payment is made within a week, three working days or something like that of the time the paper from the authorising department is received in the proper form. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.21) —I thank the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) for his answer and for his undertaking to get that information from his Department. I have about four questions on the Department of the Treasury. I would like to know whether the Government is contemplating increasing penalties for bank officers who are knowingly involved in opening accounts under false names. What conditions is the Government placing on overseas banks which operate in Australia to ensure that they will co-operate with taxation authorities if inquiries need to be made on overseas documents or transactions which may have taken place abroad? Has the Government set any deadlines by which financial institutions must have in place a code of conduct for the operation of electronic funds transfer? I believe that it is important that these areas be looked at as they all relate to transfer pricing rorts which may be existing and to various tax evasion processes which occur when people transfer funds to tax havens. I would also like to know whether it is the Government's policy to tighten the conditions which directors and owners of insurance companies must satisfy in order to be able to operate. We have certainly had a number of problems in my area of interest, trucking, for example, when insurance companies, or purported insurance companies, have ripped off various honest truckies within the Australian community. This has also happened in a number of other areas. What are the Government and the Department of the Treasury doing about that? Is the Government taking any steps to introduce a re-insurance market in Australia to stop the types of problems which were reported last year in this area? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.24) —Frankly, I do not know what the Government is doing about the insurance companies that are ripping off honest truckies, other than applying the general fraud laws. There has been a number of questions. I am not able to answer them, nor are the officials present. I think it is drawing a very long bow indeed to say that they relate to the estimates which are before the Committee at the moment. However, I will endeavour to obtain an answer to those questions from the Department of the Treasury. Proposed expenditures agreed to. GROUP D Department of Education Proposed expenditure, $30,983,000 Department of Housing and Construction Proposed expenditure, $11,591,000 Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism Proposed expenditure, $2,145,000 Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment Proposed expenditure, $5,092,000 Department of Aboriginal Affairs Proposed expenditure, $2,625,000 Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.26) —I want to make some brief remarks regarding the Department of Education and the public judgment of the standards and quality of education in recent years. The best method of measuring this is the fact that between 1984 and 1985 there was a major movement of students from Government schools to non-government schools. This was not a trend by the rich or the affluent in any way; it was a trend by the ordinary people of Australia who made their own value judgments and decided that their children should go to independent schools even though that transition imposed, and still imposes, a serious financial burden upon them. Lest anyone should have any doubt about the magnitude of the trend, over the last decade there has been considerable movement, but in one year alone-from 1984 to 1985-there was a movement of 0.6 per cent and that represents many thousands of students moving from government schools to non-government schools. In 1984 74.8 per cent of the students were in government schools and 25.2 per cent of the students were in non-government schools. The following year, 1985, the government school population fell to 74.2 per cent and the non-government school population per cent rose to 25.8 per cent. That is a very big movement of students across the spheres of choice. That movement did not take place because non-government schools are wealthy. On the contrary, as the Committee will know, a whole series of reports, including Karmel committee reports, have indicated that something like 90 per cent of the non-government school sector is considerably more deprived than government schools. If honourable senators want figures, the most recent measurement would be class sizes-the number of pupils per teacher. In 1985, 150,383 teachers were in government schools and 46,747 in independent schools. If there had been the same pupil-teacher ratio in independent schools, they would have required some 5,369 more teachers. So we are looking at a choice by parents across the board because they believe, for their own particular reasons, that there is a better quality of education in independent schools. I do not believe that this reflects at all upon the individual teachers in government schools. It looks to the industrial systems that bear down on the teaching systems and give rigidity in government schools. Whether or not my belief is correct is not the point. The judges of this matter-the parents of children-have chosen and they have made very significant choices. They have done so even though this Government has proceeded to penalise the system. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who is now in the chamber, will furiously argue otherwise. The fact of the matter is that against the promise that there would be no alteration in the basic grant of 20 per cent to students in independent schools-we had encouraged the States to make grants of 20 per cent-there has been a sad decline in the number of schools. It is no good the Minister arguing that these were affluent schools. The Minister knows very well indeed that there is no measure of an affluent school. Senator Ryan —Rubbish. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Minister says `rubbish' and I hope that that is recorded in Hansard. I want every one of the parents and teachers in those schools that have been deprived to know that the Minister said: `Rubbish'. As she has been a teacher, the Minister must know that many parents make enormous sacrifices to send their children to schools. In fact many mothers go to work purely to provide the fees to send their children to schools. To say that a school is affluent is to put a brush across every parent in that school, which is a nonsense. In any case the remark of `rubbish' is itself garbage because every parent in such a school has paid taxes in the same way as every other parent, and indeed is entitled to the same contribution-- Senator Ryan —We have passed the 1950s. We are in the 1980s now. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I would like the Minister to keep saying these things because every word reported in Hansard is valuable to the parents and the teachers in the independent sector. I encourage the Minister to keep talking-please do! Senator Ryan —I don't have to encourage you. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I am one of the more infrequent speakers in this chamber. Hansard records that. But when I do speak I speak with the facts in front of me. They are facts that embarrass the Minister. I make it perfectly clear that the job of a government is to ensure that it governs for all of the students and in favour of all of the parents in Australia. It should not put a means test on parents on the spurious basis of choosing a school and saying: `I put a means test on that school. All parents in that school have similar incomes'. She knows that that is nonsense and so does everybody else. She knows that her Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), her Government and she have broken the policies that they have made. I wish she would keep on talking. The more she does, the more votes the Government will lose. Year by year more people cross over from her system to the other system. Lest we have any difficulty with this, let us take a little test. The demand by ordinary parents for schooling in the independent system requires, in a growing population, more new schools. I looked into that and noticed that in the last two years of the Fraser Government-I do not think there will be any interjections now-in 1982 and 1983, 85 and 81 new independent schools opened respectively. Those figures can be checked. In 1984 the number fell to 55. In 1985 it fell to 47, and down it goes. The silence is eloquent at this moment. The number has gone down. There is a demand from people to move across the board and yet there is a stranglehold on schools. The independent system is being faced today with what is called accountability. Senator Crowley —Surely you do not object to that. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I welcome these interjections. I believe the same accountability should be applied to government schools as to independent schools. I am fully of the opinion that we should apply exactly the same tests of incomes of parents, ratio of pupils to teachers, of quality of buildings, et cetera. I am fully in favour of accountability for all Australians. Is Senator Crowley, who is trying to interject, in favour of that kind of accountability? It does not happen. The wealthiest person in Australia can choose to send his child to a government school and pay nothing. No one checks the wealth of a person who does that. Yet if a taxpayer, wealthy or poor, chooses to send his child to the private sector, he is not only required to pay but also now will be subjected to all sorts of accountability. It is not just a matter of how the Commonwealth Government's money is spent. A whole series of quite irrelevant probings that have nothing to do with the auditing of Commonwealth Government money are to be made. One of the crazy things being built into the education system is that the higher the fees paid by parents the less money the school will receive from the Commonwealth. Inbuilt into that will be the incentive to keep the fees as low as possible. I cannot imagine anything more stupidly socialistic and misguided than to build that kind of framework into the system. But there it is. Despite the Minister's socialist rhetoric, she cannot escape from the fact that the electors who are her judges are choosing year by year to go over to the private sector. They are saying that the Minister is wrong, that her policies are wrong, that they want total freedom of choice and that there ought to be a widening of assistance. I am, and proudly so, a product of government schools. I believe that the government school system ought to be-- Senator Ryan —Stop bad mouthing them, then. Stop running them down. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —What a stupid interjection by the Minister in asking me to stop running them down. I have not said one word against government schools in this speech. Indeed, I said that we should not blame the teachers in the schools but should blame the industrial system and the inflexibility of the government system which prevents the teachers-- Senator Ryan —You were running them down. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Those were my words and yet the Minister made the nonsense interjection that I should stop running them down. There was not a word of reflection on them on my part. Senator Ryan —You were saying that they are no good, that the parents should leave them. That is what you have been saying all night. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I hope the Minister will keep on doing this; it is so valuable. I cannot believe that a Minister can be so crass in her misjudgment as to walk into this all the time. The parents are leaving the schools because of the rigidity of the system, because of the bearing down of the teacher unions upon the system, because the Public Service attitude to running the schools does not give them the flexibility and because they believe that the pastoral care in that system is not as good. Senator Crowley —How do you know all that? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I have spent more time in both government and independent schools than any other member of the Senate, having been for four years Federal Minister for Education and having spent three or four days a week visiting schools all over Australia. Without any kind of misjudgment, I have probably talked to more parents than anyone else here, or at least to as many. I know that Senator Robertson was an active teacher and inspector of schools and I respect his outlook. But the honourable senator asked me how I know. I know from experience but I also know from the facts. I know simply by looking at what is happening. People are voting with their feet. By voting with their feet they are saying that one system is preferable to another. That is what hurts the Minister because, no matter what she may throw at us with figures, the fact is that the voters are saying that they want more opportunities in the independent system. Of course, what is necessary is to open up the government system, to give freedom of choice first of all within the government system as indeed in Canberra, to overcome regionalism. Parents should have the right to move their children to another school not just because the bus fare is cheaper for the Government. They should be allowed to send their children to any school of their choice; that will put competition within the school system. Parents as taxpayers should have the right to transfer their children between systems in order to get a fair share of taxpayers' money. When compulsory education was introduced in the late nineteenth century, there was never any intention to make it compulsory to go to a particular brand of school. Until then everybody went to non-government schools because that is what they were. All that happened was that a decision was made that at a certain age students should be submitted to a range of curricula and to certain years of study. The choice has always been intended to be with parents, not just for wealthy parents. As the Minister knows, a great bulk of the parents of children at independent schools are in the lowest socio-economic category. Those moving towards that system today are in the same category. I do not in any way deprecate the teachers or the schools in the government system but I deprecate the rigidities of systems that are creating this trend and the inequity within the independent system. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.41) —I have only one comment to make in response to Senator Sir John Carrick. The figures which he cited about approvals for new non-government schools for 1986 and 1987 were wrong. The actual numbers as have been provided in answer to a question from Senator Puplick at Estimates Committee D are that provisional approvals for 1986 were 73 and for 1987 there were 66. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.41) —I turn to certain matters arising under the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. I wish to refer to two specific matters, the first of which relates to the on-going financial saga of the Australian Opera. During the Estimates Committee D examination of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment I asked a number of questions about losses which had been sustained by both the Australian Opera and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as a result of blackouts imposed by certain trade unions on two televised performances by the Australian Opera last year on the production of Un Ballo in Maschera in Sydney and the Tales of Hoffman in Melbourne. To save the time of the Committee, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a letter from the Australian Opera to the Chairman of Estimates Committee D and a table which was provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to Estimates Committee C at which I asked a question on the same matter. The question dealt with losses sustained by both those organisations because of the blackouts to which I referred. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE C HEARING OF TUESDAY 15 APRIL 1986 QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE Cost of Blacking Out Opera Simulcasts Question asked by Senator Puplick (Hansard page 366) Question: What were the losses, if any, to the ABC from the blacking out of the opera simulcasts by union activity in the course of last year? Answer: 1. THE MASKED BALL (Sydney) The power to ABC vans was shut down as a result of industrial action taken on behalf of the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association (ATAEA) approximately 93 minutes into the Opera, early in Act II. The Opera telecast was initially scheduled for 180' approx. Funds expended by the ABC which were not recoverable and for which no tangible asset resulted, can be considered as half of the total expenditure listed as follows: Total 50% (a) Below line salaries expenditure... $63,000 $31,500 (b) Transmission lines... 2,400 1,200 (c) Above line external expenditure... 21,000 10,500 $86,400 $43,200 2. TALES OF HOFFMAN (Melbourne) Due to industrial action by members of the ATAEA there was no performance and hence no ABC-TV simulcast. Funds expended by the ABC which were not recoverable and for which no tangible asset resulted are as follows: (a) Below line salaries expenditure approx.... $60,000 (b) Transmission lines approx.... 2,300 (c) Above line external expenditure approx.... 8,600 $70,900 THE AUSTRALIAN OPERA The Opera Centre, 480 Elizabeth Street, Surry Hills, N.S.W. 2010. P.O. Box 291, Strawberry Hills, N.S.W. 2012. Cables: OPAUST Sydney. Telephone: (02) 699 1099. Telex: AA74676 22 April 1986 The Chairman Senate Estimates Committee D Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Sir Re: Loss from Disrupted Simulcast We have been asked to provide an estimate of the loss sustained from the disruption to the simulcast over the ABC of the opera Un Ballo in Maschera last August. As advised, this disruption arose from industrial action between six unions and the Sydney Opera House Trust. The Australian Opera was not a party to this dispute over staff parking privileges. Our gross loss is twofold. Firstly, the loss of $66,667 from the corporate sponsorship. Secondly, a loss which cannot be determined exactly from future sales of electronic recordings, mainly videos, of the simulcast. As videos are to the performing arts a sunrise industry, the long-term financial rewards are yet to be determined. Sales to date have been of a series of simulcasts from the Sydney Opera House, one of three productions in Australia for $25,000 plus a share of future sales; and one of four productions in the United States for US$40,000, again with share of actual sales. To earn these revenues, we acquire the rights, involving mainly payments to the performers. In the case of the disrupted simulcast, some $38,000 was not paid for these rights, thus reducing the adverse financial effect to slightly under $29,000. In video rights sales, we net around 40% of gross sale value, with the balance going for residual payments to the artists. Based on sales of like productions to date, our net loss for sales in Australia and the United States only would have been around $9,000. The total known and probable loss would, therefore, have been $38,000 plus 50% of future video sales in Australia and the United States. In addition, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation invested its staff and equipment for producing the telecast, but we are unable to quantify the extent of their loss. Lastly, besides some $90,000 in gross revenues to the arts industry, the disruption adversely affected $52,000 in taxable earnings by employees in the industry, made up of our performers and technicians, technicians employed by the Sydney Opera House Trust and our orchestra employed by the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust. Yours faithfully PATRICK L. VEITCH General Manager Senator PUPLICK —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I touch very briefly on both those matters. The Australian Opera in its response indicated that it sustained losses of $66,667 from corporate sponsorship as a result of Un Ballo in Maschera being blacked out in Sydney and a loss of about $38,000 in video sales which would have resulted had the production proceeded in the way it was intended and been videoed. The letter indicated that about $90,000 in gross revenue to the arts industry which affected $52,000 in taxable earnings by employees in the industry was also affected by this strike. The information provided by the ABC to Estimates Committee C indicated that a loss between the two blackouts, that is Un Ballo in Sydney and Tales of Hoffman in Melbourne, was in the vicinity of $43,000 and almost $71,000 in total. One is looking at a figure of about $90,000 or almost $100,000 to the Australian Opera, a figure in excess of $100,000 to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and perhaps about $50,000-odd in taxation revenue. Taken altogether, one is talking about losses which are in the vicinity of a quarter of a million dollars. Those losses result from a union pulling the plug on cultural broadcasts in Australia on the issue of whether union members are to be provided with free car parking. Can one imagine a situation in which losses are sustained by a company such as the Australian Opera, struggling for its financial viability, by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation which certainly needs to attract all of the revenue that it can in its commercial operations and by the taxation system, amounting to about a quarter of a million dollars, because a couple of trade unionists have their car parking spaces taken away. If this Government is serious it should address the sorts of issues which ordinary Australians are sick and tired of seeing on a day to day basis which result in losses to the economy, to taxation revenue, to government and to private corporations that are occasioned by nothing more than a petty squabble about whether certain well-connected members of a trade union will be provided with car parking spaces. This is symptomatic of what the accord and the relationship between this Administration and the trade union movement is leading to for this Government and the way it conducts its business. The other matter which I wish to raise also relates to the Australian Opera. Honourable senators will recall that we have had discussions in this place about the steps that were to be taken to try to preserve the financial viability of the Australian Opera. A deal was entered into that Coopers and Lybrand with Kim Williams of the Australian Film Commission were to undertake a study of the financial position of the Australian Opera and make certain recommendations. They made certain recommendations which involved the provision of a one-off grant of $2.5m to keep the Australian Opera solvent. The Appropriation Bill (No. 3) before us provides money for that. However, the other part of the formula was that the Australian Opera would seek to reduce its costs by roughly $750,000. At the same time, the Federal Government would increase its annual operational costs payment to the Australian Opera by a similar amount-in fact, by $740,000. It now appears-I would be grateful for the Minister's advice-that the Government has made a decision that although the Opera has taken on board its share of the cost-cutting arrangement the Government is now seeking to weasel out of its commitment to provide the additional on-going funding. In the Age newspaper on 19 May an article by Michael Shmith headed `Government should keep its word' states: In denying the opera the annual lift of $750,000, which would have brought its total subsidy to around $6 million, the Government is effectively backing-out of part of a bargain struck (but never officially ratified) between it, the Australian Opera, and the financial recommendations of the Australia Council-commissioned Coopers Lybrand report on the Opera's problems. Maria Prerauer, a well-known arts commentator and arts editor of the Australian, in the Weekend Australian of 17-18 May 1986 said: According to well informed sources, the Federal Government is backing out of the Coopers and Lybrand plan to rescue the company-at least in part. An announcement is expected next week. The Federal, New South Wales and Victorian Governments will still contribute the $2.5 million, one-off payment to get the Opera solvent. However, the Federal Government is now expected to make this conditional on the Opera agreeing to waive the other part of the plan-a $740,000 increase in its annual government subsidies. I therefore rise this evening to ask the Minister whether the comments which have been made in the media that the Government is seeking somehow to back out of the arrangement to provide the additional annual funding for the Australian Opera are correct. I hope that the Minister will be in a position to say to the Committee that the newspaper reports regarding the Government backing out of the deal which was understood to have been negotiated between the Government and the Opera and which involved a number of factors, including the Opera taking on to its board a nominee of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), are incorrect. That will be extremely good news for the Opera and for those who have made a commitment to a reduction of the expenditure of the Opera, involving agreeing to the plan which was developed by the Coopers and Lybrand study assisted by Mr Williams of the Film Commission. One hopes that the Minister will be in the position to tell the Committee this evening that the Government is not weaseling out of the deal which was made for the financial rescue of the Australian Opera. I appreciate that the Australian Opera is a major consumer-in fact, the major consumer-of arts funding revenue in the Commonwealth Budget. I also accept that the Opera has to make certain cuts in its administrative and other arrangements. That is correct and proper. It is also fair and proper. But if an agreement was understood by the Opera that it would take certain steps because the Government had agreed to take certain steps, I would be grateful to be informed by the Minister whether the Government is now going to honour its side of the bargain which was struck as far as this matter is concerned or whether the Press reports that the Government is seeking to back out of what was clearly understood to be its commitment to the long term financial viability of the Australian Opera are correct. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.52) —In response to Senator Puplick's remarks, the Government did not offer the Australian Opera an increase in annual grants, as Senator Puplick stated. The Government offered a $1.737m contribution on the basis that there would be a $2.5m cash injection. The rest was contingent on the States agreeing to increase their contribution which to date they have not. In light of a healthy budget forecast by the Australian Opera, further discussions with the Opera are going on. At no stage was there any firm or even implied agreement that the Commonwealth would increase annual grants above the consumer price index level. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.53) —I want to raise a couple of matters. I go back to the question of the National Maritime Museum's $70 a piece, four-page booklet, which the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) remembers well, no doubt. We were told at the Estimates Committee D hearing that the price of this booklet had gone up from something like $25 each to $70 each because of the time constraints imposed as a result of what appeared to us to be a degree of incompetence because nothing seemed to have changed apart from the time it took people to come to decisions. It was explained to us, as I said, that the reason for the increased cost was basically that the approvals were delayed and that the booklet had to be produced very quickly. I refer to the response of 7 May by Mr Kerr, the Acting Secretary to the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, which begins: Please find attached the final questions and answers in relation to the National Maritime Museum. We should remember that we had the public servant in question return to give further evidence to the Committee to clear up the confusion, at least the confusion in his mind, on this matter. Senator Morris asked the following question: Was the cost- that is, the increased cost, to $70 each, of the publication that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) took overseas- affected by overtime and penalty rates? The answer was this: Yes. Rawson Graphics advise that the job was originally estimated on the basis of there being 17 plates and that there would be 20 working days for separations, plates and printing. The final job required 39 plates and only seven days including a weekend were available to complete the job. This required overtime on the week days plus Saturday and Sunday at penalty rates. The original estimate included $2,100 for overtime and the final figure was $4,860. In other words, only $2,700 of the increased cost related to overtime. That underlines the extent to which I believe the Committee was totally misled. The real increase in expenditure had very little to do with overtime. It was less than $10 per pamphlet. The reality was this: The increase in the number of plates from which the printing was done, from 17 to 39, meant an increase in costs for film separations and plates of approximately 130 per cent. That was where the real expenditure increase was. Will the Department eventually come clean and tell us what on earth really went on? Why was there an increase from 17 to 39 in the number of plates required? Was this a function of speed or was it, as I understand from the printers I have asked, a function of requiring an extraordinary number of plates, almost ad absurdum? One plate, as I understand it, was required for a couple of spots of yellow that appear throughout the publication. Senator Puplick —Are you sure they are not gold? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —They may well be gold. The honourable senator may be right. In this ridiculous affair we need to be told why there was an increase in the number of plates from 17 to 39. Did it have anything to do with time delays, as I understand it would not? Why was a quote involving 17 plates given to people who are allegedly experts in this area when 39 plates were needed? I would be grateful if we could get accurate answers. I would also be grateful if the Minister could assist me in the following matter. I asked the Australia Council what happens when it provides funds through one of its boards to activities such as the Pilbara Connection and what happens when revenue is then earned as a result of the spending of those funds by the sponsoring organisation? The answer given to me was as follows: The Community Arts Board approved a grant of $8,000 to the Australian Folk Trust towards engaging Mike Burns as a music co-ordinator for the Pilbara project. Peter Stone (a printer in Perth) underwrote the costs involved in documenting the project on tape and compiling the book. The Community Arts Board did not approve funds for the documentation of the project and accordingly would not be able to claim its share of the revenue earned. I am still concerned to know what happened to the revenue earned because, as I understand it, the $8,000 grant to the Australian Folk Trust approved by the Community Arts Board towards engaging Mike Burns is only part of the arts funding money that has gone to this venture. As I understand it, the Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia provided $35,000 of assistance relating to the Pilbara Connection. I say `as I understand it'. It may well not be so, in which case I would be interested to know what that money went towards. I also understand from an open line interview I had with Mr Harry Bluck, who was the Chairman of the Western Australian Arts Council and who appears to have been got rid of following what was no doubt a fairly poor performance on talkback radio with me when I was talking about some extraordinary funding arrangements in Western Australia, particularly regarding the Musicians Union of Australia, of which he was the Secretary, that the Western Australian Arts Council had also provided money towards the Pilbara Connection. I wonder about the extent to which that reply means that the Government has supplied the great bulk of money involved in this but someone-I do not know whether it is the union-has collected the money. An article on page 1 of The Metal Worker-Voice of the Union of 2 March 1986 states: Pilbara Connection is available on LP or cassette at the reduced price of $10 from the Western Australian branch of the union. There is also a book which publishes over 100 of the poems and stories collected and includes the scores of all the songs of the album plus others. It is extremely good value at $6 and can be ordered from the Arts Office, Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia, 74 Beaufort Street, Perth. I have taken advantage of that offer. Senator Puplick —Have you contributed to the union's funds? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I want to know whether I have contributed to the union's funds in order to hear what the money provided by this Parliament has been used for. I find some of the poems and songs very attractive; others I find less so. No doubt it is useful that people in the Roebourne regional prison should be given the opportunity to participate in this program, as many did. That may well be a very useful piece of social behaviour which will assist in their rehabilitation. I notice also that the book is not without the benefit of contributions from union organisers writing what could loosely be described as poems getting stuck into the bosses. Be that as it may, I have no complaint about the contents of this book and the cassette. All that interests me is whether we have a situation where, directly or indirectly, funds of the Australia Council have gone into making possible the production of such booklets and cassettes when I do not know where the proceeds have gone. Another matter I raised at the Estimates Committee on the question of funding by the Australia Council related to the muralist in residence situation under which the Builders Labourers Federation received $52,000 for a muralist in residence, arts worker trainee and various other activities. The answer given was that the mural is at the Rialto building in Melbourne and the muralist funded was Gwenda Wiseman. The residency was enormously successful, involving co-operation between the union, developers, architects and the artist. I gather from that answer that the $52,000 related entirely to that specific mural. I wonder whether that was so and, if it were not, on what other matters the money was spent. I am concerned also about another response that the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment gave relating to this increasing diversion of arts money, which is now approximately $1.5m, to the trade union movement on schemes such as art in the community and art in the work place. The art in the work place scheme was started by the Fraser Government, as I understand it, with the intention, quite properly, of providing opportunities in the work place for people to get the benefit of artistic endeavour. That is only right and proper because many people in working environments do not have the opportunity or cash resources to attend things such as the opera, where so much of their tax money is spent. However, it appears to me that in the quadrupling of funding that has taken place in this area under the present Government, compared with the Fraser Government's funding, some curious things have taken place. I quote from the 1984-85 annual report of the Australia Council, which states: In 1984-85 expenditure was $927,000- under the art and working life program- more than four times that in 1982-83-involving 86 grants. Union initiated projects took 75 per cent, with 22 per cent and 3 per cent going to projects initiated by arts organisations and artists respectively. That means that approximately $700,000 went to trade unions in one year and it appears that that kind of spending has been maintained in the current year. Apart from union initiated projects, the report mentions that individuals also take part. The report states: In one example of participation by the rank and file, a photographer, cartoonist and poster maker collaborated with the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association to explore members' attitudes to technological change. Fortunately there is a photograph of this poster exploring technological change which was funded by the Australia Council. There is a picture of Alexander Graham Bell on an old fashioned telephone and a fellow sitting in a car with a car telephone and television set, with one hand on the wheel; across the middle it says: `Who benefits?'. The poem written on the photograph is this: There was a smart fellow called Bell Whose promotion hadn't gone well. The skills he acquires Won't be required; The computer in his job excels.! I am intrigued to see that in this case arts money is being used to promote an anti-development, anti-progress, anti-mechanisation, anti-automation type of approach. It seems to me that if these arts grants by the Australia Council are providing increased funds for art to be available in the work place or to working people who otherwise would not have access to them, they would be justifiable, even in today's economic crisis, but these grants seem to be used mainly to finance the spread of political propaganda under the guise of arts funding. At a time when a recent study showed that the trade union movement-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.08) —I intervene to allow my colleague to resume his speech. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.08) —I thank Senator Puplick. I will be only a minute more. At a time when a recent study showed the trade union movement to have huge assets and an enormous income, it is ridiculous for the Government to finance the spread of union propaganda through politically motivated songs, plays, banners, posters and newspapers produced at public expense under the guise of promoting the arts. Senator Childs —Your bias is showing. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Yes, I am biased against my money being directed to propaganda purposes. I find that offensive. I can demonstrate to Senator Childs the output of what is supposed to be art. If Senator Childs finds nothing offensive about public money for the arts being used to promote a proposition, that is fine. I do not think that is the correct way to spend arts money. I am quite happy to see people who are artists express a left wing, right wing or any wing view at all. Senator Childs —You want to castrate them. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I have no intention of castrating them. All I want to do is ensure that they do not have their hand in my pocket when they are trying to destroy the sort of society in which I believe. Senator Puplick —Before they castrate you. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Before they castrate me in those circumstances-absolutely. If the union movement, along with other radical political groups, wishes to use the arts as a means of spreading its message, it is quite entitled to do so provided it pays for it and does not ask the Australian taxpayers to foot the bill. By making unions and radical groups into patrons of the arts at public expense the Government is reinforcing the view that the easiest way for a writer, performer or artist to get money these days is to have a leftist or radical message and to go to the union movement or other leftist and sometimes front organisations which appear to be able to get increasing amounts of arts money that has been diverted from the traditional arts sources. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.10) —Senator Michael Baume asked for more detail about the publication of the pamphlet concerning the National Maritime Museum. I have nothing to add to the very copious information that was given to Senator Baume when he raised that question several times in the Estimates Committee. If officers are able to produce more detailed information I will let him have it at a later date. Senator Baume also asked at length questions concerning the revenue documentation of a community arts project in the Pilbara region. If Senator Baume had paid attention to the answer provided to him, he would have found that the matter he was querying was answered, and the record of that is in the Hansard record of 10 April 1986. The answer states: The Community Arts Board did not approve funds for the documentation of the project and accordingly would not be able to claim a share of the revenue earned. Senator Michael Baume —I quoted that. Senator RYAN —That is the answer to his question. Senator Michael Baume —It is not the answer to the question; that is the whole point. Senator RYAN —Senator Baume does not seem to be able to understand that if the Community Arts Board has not funded the documentation, the question of the documentation which was funded other than by Community Arts Board funds is not a matter for consideration by Estimates Committees. Senator Baume was also concerned to repeat the questions he asked and had answered in Estimates Committee D in regard to the funding of the mural at the Rialto building in Melbourne. I repeat the answer given to him, which is that the mural was created at the Rialto building, the muralist was Gwenda Wiseman, all of the funds were made available to the muralist to produce the mural, the mural exists and it is there for Senator Baume to inspect. Senator Baume also made a very long, drawn out criticism of the fact that some projects funded by the Community Arts Board involve the expression of political views with which he does not agree. I remind Senator Baume that the Community Arts Board makes its decisions on the basis of artistic merit as judged by it. Those decisions are not taken by the Government and I would think very few people in Senator Baume's party would want direct Government interference in the decisions made by the Community Arts Board. If Senator Baume finds it dreadfully unbalanced that some poetry written under funding from the Community Arts Board adopts a left wing perspective, I remind him of the comments made by his colleague, Senator Puplick, earlier this evening. He acknowledged that the bulk of the arts funding made available through the Australia Council goes to the Australian Opera. I think he would find that very few operas espouse a left wing perspective. So perhaps there is an overall balance in the political views expressed through projects funded through the Australia Council, and that balance is certainly not in favour of left wing perspectives. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.13) —I had not intended to go on, but, really, that answer is incredible. I heard the Minister responding to Senator Sir John Carrick before and thought that was quaint, but this is absolutely extraordinary. I said to the Minister, if only she had been listening-out of charity I suggest maybe she was not listening, not that she did not understand-when I quoted that answer relating to the Pilbara Connection that I was under the impression from other bits of information that had come into my hands that there may be other funding, apart from the $8,000 revealed, and that part of that other funding may have been, I was asking for guidance, as I may have been wrong, an amount of $35,000 through the Western Australian Trades and Labour Council, as I recall it, for a tour of the Pilbara. I asked whether that assistance to tour the Pilbara region involving a grant of $35,000 to the Western Australian Trades and Labour Council was related to the Pilbara Connection. I do not need to have read out to me the very question I referred back to the Minister, for heaven's sake. I also said I understood that the Arts Council of Western Australia, through Mr Harry Bluck, the Chairman and also the Secretary of the Musicians Union of Western Australia, had appeared to indicate to me on a talkback program in Western Australia that the Arts Council of Western Australia had also provided funding-in other words, Australia Council funding-indirectly through the Arts Council of Western Australia for the Pilbara Connection. Rather than have a silly lecture from the Minister, I would like a coherent answer to the specific points I made. I should also point out to her that I did not simply repeat my question about the mural; I asked specifically an additional question which was whether all the funds, all the $52,000 that went to the Builders Labourers Federation, were entirely used up on that mural. Senator Ryan —Yes. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Minister. The reason I asked that is that there was not simply a muralist in residence; other elements were also involved. As for her last point about the opera not representing leftist approaches, to my knowledge, unless I am totally wrong, the Opera does not appear to me to represent a right wing approach either. In fact, I draw her attention to a very successful opera put on by the Victorian Opera, called the Consul. I would have thought even the Minister would have found that to have had a message that might even have appealed to her. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.16) —It is totally inappropriate that I become engaged in a fairly uninformed debate with Senator Michael Baume about the way in which ideas appear and are articulated through various art forms. It is a subject on which I have a considerable amount to say but I certainly will not take up the time of the Committee while it is considering Estimates to do so. Unlike Senator Baume, I do not judge arts projects according to whether or not they appeal to my particular value system. The officers have no further information available on the Pilbara project. I point out to Senator Michael Baume that funds distributed to projects through the Western Australian Arts Council are distributed according to decisions made by the Council, not decisions made by the Australia Council. Again I doubt that Senator Michael Baume, or at least his small `l' liberal colleagues, would want to see the Australia Council actually directing State arts councils in their use of funds. Certainly they do not, and therefore officers here tonight do not have that information. As far as officers are able to advise me, the answer to the question about the use of the mural funds is yes, they all went on the production of the mural. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.17) —Before I get on to talking about Kakadu National Park, I certainly will not allow Senator Ryan to get away with her flip comment about the Opera and its political prejudices. If we were putting together a good left wing season of Opera, I would certainly include Beethoven's Fidelio-Leonora overture, Donizetti's La Fille du Regiment, Poulanc's Dialogue of the Carmelites, Verdi's Il Trovatore, Delibes's Lakme, Puccini's Il Tabarro and half a dozen productions of Giancarlo Menotti. If the Minister wants to get into a few debates about the Left and the Right in opera, I am more than prepared to accommodate her. Nevertheless, my purpose in rising is to draw attention to certain matters arising from mineral activities in the Kakadu National Park which were also dealt with in the Estimates Committee's examination of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. The Minister will recall that a discussion took place with the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Professor Ovington, on the question of the potential expansion of Kakadu National Park Stage II and the possibility that there would be effectively the equivalent of World Heritage listing of Stage II of the Kakadu National Park despite the fact that only Stage I had actually been submitted through the processes whereby World Heritage listing was obtained. I must say that the information provided by the Department does not appear to me satisfactory in terms of answering the question as to whether at the time that the international bodies were considering the listing of the Kakadu National Park Stage I for World Heritage listing purposes they were adequately informed that the Government might move in some other fashion to include Stage II as part of the World Heritage listing covering the Kakadu National Park. I believe that the Committee is entitled to some greater explanation. I see Senator Zakharov is in the chamber this evening. From the inquiries of the Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources into the resources of the Kakadu region she will know that it is not easy to make a determination as to exactly what the status of stage II proposed for World Heritage listing is and what that means as far as the mineral regimes and as far as the rights to mine, prospect and develop in that area are concerned. During the course of the Estimates Committee examination I put a number of questions to Professor Ovington. I sought to elucidate some information from him about the nature of mineral leases within the stage II area. Professor Ovington indicated in his evidence that there were really only two sorts of mineral leases within the Stage II area. That is something that I frankly do not agree with because there are a number of granted mineral leases, there are a number of mineral lease applications, there are a number of exploration retention lease applications and there are a number of exploration licence applications. Those four classes of mineral interests are, in fact, different, so that there are not simply two sorts of mineral interests being affected by the development of stage II of Kakadu National Park, there are at least four. The second point is that Professor Ovington indicated that he thought within the area that was being discussed in the terms of stage II that there were about five areas and that there were a number of small leases, and his words were `or perhaps five acres each'. That would give an impression that there was something in the vicinity of 500 acres potentially being affected, but if in fact one looks at the evidence on which I rely fairly heavily and which was given to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources in a document dated 25 March 1986 by Mr Sherrington on behalf of Geopeko-- Senator Zakharov —I would try reading some of the other evidence, if I were you. Senator PUPLICK —All I am trying to establish is the actual physical area we are discussing, not the value of them. Professor Ovington claimed in his evidence that there were about 500 acres. The evidence from Mr Sherrington indicates that the number of blocks where mineral lease applications are pending or have been made is probably in the vicinity of 16,000 acres. I say nothing about the value or the quality of those. I am sure Senator Zakharov would be prepared to concede that. I do not want to debate that. I simply want to debate whether the Senate Estimates Committee was accurately informed about the physical area which might be affected in terms of mineral lease applications which might be adversely affected on the basis of the proclamation of stage II as equivalent to stage I in terms of its World Heritage listing. I do not think we have accurate information about the amount of area which might actually be affected if the Government were to proceed to place stage II on the same legal footing as stage I in terms of the mineral regime. All I am attempting to do is to establish whether the information given to the Estimates Committee on that matter was accurate or not. I appreciate that the Minister probably does not have access to the information this evening to make a response to either of those comments. I would be perfectly happy if the Minister indicated that she was prepared to take that matter on notice and perhaps to seek some information as to whether or not the information given to the Estimates Committee was correct. I would be perfectly happy to receive that information at some later stage. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.24) —In response to the first part of Senator Puplick's question, the Government has recently been informed on the mechanisms required to extend the site on the World Heritage List. That information has come from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the Government is now proceeding to consider nomination of the extended area. Although that was agreed between the previous Government and the Northern Territory Government, the Northern Territory Government will be consulted again. In respect of the second part of Senator Puplick's question, as he anticipated, the information is not available now but I will certainly endeavour to make it available to him at the earliest opportunity. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.25) —I have a very short question for the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) on the Department of Housing and Construction. In view of the leak problems at the Cameron Offices, is the Government asking the Department to examine the appropriateness of the current standards for the use of concrete in construction work? Is the Government asking the Standards Association of Australia or any other expert body to examine the problem, which is apparently quite widespread in buildings of this type? I would be very pleased if the Minister could indicate what is actually being done in the case of the Cameron Offices, which have received quite a bit of coverage in the Press, and how the Government is planning to tackle that particular problem? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.26) —I am advised that inquiries along the line of Senator Vigor's question are being pursued very thoroughly by the Government. When information is available I will make it available to the senator. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.27) —I have a couple of short questions relating to the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Firstly, I would like to thank the departmental officers who supplemented the information provided to the Estimates Committee on the question of tourism. Just before Christmas the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) outraged Western Australians by saying that their facilities were inadequate for Japanese visitors and used that, in fact, as an excuse for abandoning the Hogan promotion in Japan. I notice that the Australian Tourist Commission, in its reply to questions raised in Estimates Committee D, had a far more positive view of the facilities in Western Australia and of the opportunities for tourism. Was the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism reflecting the Government's view of Western Australian tourist facilities when he made the outburst last year or have those tourist facilities been considerably improved in the meantime? I know the Minister will be quite pleased to answer the next question. Can the Minister indicate how far the Government has progressed in its consideration of the report Women, Sport and the Media, by the Working Group on Women in Sport? When are we likely to see some action on the establishment of a women's sport promotion unit? Does the Government intend to increase the attention devoted to women's sport by the Australian Sports Commission and by the Australian Institute of Sport? If so, would it assist the process by appointing boards with reasonable numbers of women, when appointments on those boards fall due? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.29) —In response to Senator Vigor's first question concerning reports of the statement by the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Recreation (Mr John Brown) on Western Australian facilities for the Japanese, I am advised by officers that the Minister's initial statement was misreported in the Press and that he has made a clarifying statement in the Parliament in answer to a question. I do not have that answer available now but I will make it available to Senator Vigor very quickly. I am able to tell Senator Vigor-he is right, I am pleased to be able to say this-that the recommendations of the task force report on Women, Sport and the Media are under active consideration. The proposal for a women's sport promotion unit is being sympathetically considered by the Australian Sports Commission and by the Minister. No final decision has been taken yet, but in essence the response to that report has been extremely favourable at all levels, including the Government level, and the Government is looking at various ways to increase the participation of women in sporting bodies, of increasing the recognition in the media of women's sporting achievements and of generally promoting women's sport and women's sporting achievements throughout the entire community. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Consideration interrupted. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to Senate. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 105. Bankruptcy Act-Rules-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 95, 96. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 92. Broadcasting Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 100. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 93. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 89, 91, 94. Defence Act- Declaration under Regulation 49 of certain defence practice areas, dated 8 April 1986 (Gazette No. G 18, 6 May 1986). Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Determination 1986 No. 1 together with Reasons for Determination, dated 9 May 1986. Determinations 1986- No. 20-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and others. No. 22-Travelling Allowance and others. No. 23-Temporary Rental Allowance. No. 24-Overseas Living Out Allowance and others. No. 25-Bindoon Allowance. No. 26-Overseas Living Out Allowance and others. No. 27-Education Assistance Overseas. No. 28-Higher Duties Allowance. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 101, 102. Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 103, 104. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 88. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1986 No. 6-Export Meat (Amendment). Fisheries Act-Plan of Management No. 6-Northern Prawn Fishery (Amendment). Health Insurance Act- Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 87. Statement under section 106aa, dated 30 April 1986. Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 106. National Health Act-Principles formulated under sub-section 39a (6), dated 15 May 1986. Norfolk Island Act-Regulations 1986 No. 5-(Census and Statistics Ordinance). Papua New Guinea (Members of the Forces Benefits) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 99. Public Service Act-Determinations 1986 Nos 20, 23, 25, 28, 29, 32. Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 98. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determination under the Health Authority Ordinance. Ordinance 1986 No. 7-Legal Practitioners (Amendment). Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 90. Telecommunications Act-By-Laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 66. Veterans' Entitlements Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 97. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 583) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the right honourable senator's question: (1) The Right Honourable Senator will be aware that the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985 established the Australian Trade Commission on the 6 January 1986. The Commission incorporates the former Export Development Grants Board, the Australian Overseas Project Corporation, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, and certain elements of the Department. In broad terms the Department's main concern now is with policy aspects of the Trade Portfolio, with the marketing and promotional aspects the responsibility of the Commission. The total sum allocated in the current financial year for the Department and the Australian Trade Commission which may be expended for hospitality/entertainment is as follows: (a) The Department...$20,500 (b) The Australian Trade Commission...$6,500 These sums do not include representation allowances, representation supplements, or entertainment allowances in respect of officers stationed overseas, Trade Representatives, Trade Commissioners or locally-engaged staff overseas. (2) The guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the respective hospitality/entertainment accounts were as follows: (a) The Department (i) Department of Finance Directions 13/1 and 13/2, and Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14. (b) The Australian Trade Commission (i) The Australian Trade Commission follows the Finance Directions above in relation to entertainment expenditure. (3) The Department of Finance, in Circular 1985/18 has requested Departments and Authorities to record and monitor entertainment expenses to enable the necessary transfer of funds to revenue to occur when the rules governing the liability for the new tax provisions are finalised. Both the Department and the Commission are keeping appropriate records. (Question No. 744) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 2 December 1985: (1) What is the Department of Aviation's policy on RAAF aerobatic exercises being conducted over a civilian airport. (2) Is it appropriate for F/A-18 jets to perform low flying exercises over a civilian airport when 2 commercial aircraft are on the tarmac awaiting unloading procedures. (3) What requirements are set by the Department to ensure maximum safety for civilians using airport facilities, which have a dual function with the Defence Department. (4) What is the present situation in regard to defence and aviation responsibilities for specific areas of Townsville Airport. (5) What procedures are in place in the construction of the new terminal in Townsville to clearly delineate aviation and defence responsibilities. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Department of Aviation policy is that military aircraft activities (including aerobatics and low flying exercises) at civil airports are provided with a separation service from other airspace users by Air Traffic Control. The conduct of operations by military aircraft is the responsibility of the Department of Defence. (3) The Department of Aviation safety requirements are the same at both civil and joint user aerodromes. The Department's responsibilities for civil aircraft operations are detailed in the Air Navigation Act and Regulations. Military aircraft operations are managed by the Department of Defence. However, close co-ordination is maintained when civil and military aircraft operate in the same airspace to ensure the safety of all operations. (4) Townsville Airport operates under a joint user agreement between the Departments of Defence and Aviation. The Department of Defence has primary responsibility for the airport including runways, protection of the obstacle limitation surfaces and land use compatibility matters. The Department of Aviation, on a permissive occupancy basis, has responsibility for the development and maintenance of a clearly defined area which includes all civil facilities including the aircraft parking apron. Air Traffic Control services to all aircraft in the Townsville terminal area are provided by Royal Australian Air Force controllers. Under the terms of an inter-departmental agreement between the Department of Defence and the Department of Aviation, the Royal Australian Air Force provides Air Traffic Control services to civil aircraft in accordance with Department of Aviation standards. (5) The reconstruction of the terminal area at Townsville will occur almost entirely within the boundaries of the civil area. Some taxiway works which are necessary for civil purposes will be carried out in the area controlled by the Department of Defence. Liaison between the two Departments is being conducted to ensure that no disruption to normal aviation activity will occur. (Question No. 752) Senator Vigor asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 4 December 1985: (1) What proportion of child-care centres are estimated to: (a) have between 16 and 20 approved places for children under 3; (b) open for at least 9 hours each day if they have 18, 19 or 20 approved places for children under 3; and (c) open for at least 10 hours each day if they have 16 or 17 approved places for children under 3, in each State and Territory, and what is the basis for this estimate. (2) What proportion of child-care centres are estimated to open for: (a) less than 9 hours each day; (b) between 9 and 10 hours each day; (c) between 10 and 11 hours daily; and (d) at least 11 hours daily, in each State and Territory, and what is the basis of this estimate. (3) What proportion of child-care centres in each State and Territory were taken as increasing their weekly fees beyond $80 in 1985-86, and what proportion of child-care centres in each State and Territory were expected to increase their weekly fees beyond $80 in either 1986-7 or 1987-8 in the financial projections of the Department of Community Services relating to the new fee structures. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1)- NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT ACT (a)... 29.1 8.8 20.1 12.2 12.8 10.5 26.7 23.1 (b)... 18.6 5.9 13.3 7.3 5.1 5.2 20.0 15.4 (c)... 15.2 2.2 6.7 4.9 7.7 5.2 6.7 0.0 These estimates are based on information obtained for each day care centre. A small number of services are not included because budgets were not approved at the time of collecting the information. (2)- NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT ACT (a)... 13.5 5.9 6.7 2.4 7.7 0.0 13.3 23.1 (b)... 16.5 13.2 20.0 19.5 20.5 26.3 6.7 61.5 (c)... 48.5 33.8 55.6 43.9 58.9 63.2 73.3 7.8 (d)... 21.5 47.1 17.8 34.2 12.8 10.5 6.7 7.7 These estimates are based on information obtained from each centre based child care service. A small number of services are not included because budgets were not approved at the time of collecting the information. (3) The weekly fee for a child care centre depends upon the number of children in the family using care. The proportion of child care centres in each State which are expected to have a break-even cost per week per utilised child care place of $80 or more in 1985-86 is: New South Wales...13.5 Victoria...64.7 Queensland...4.4 South Australia...46.3 Western Australian...51.8 Tasmania...57.9 Northern Territory...0.0 Australian Capital Territory...30.7 The proportion of child care centres expected to have a break-even cost of $80 or more in 1986-87 or 1987-88 will depend upon the costs of operating centres in those periods, and will be influenced by salary and wage movements as well as CPI increases. The $80 limit for fee relief purposes will be periodically reviewed. (Question No. 784) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) Has the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) established a Parliamentary excerpts unit for the recording of parliament and for the use of excerpts for the ABC's regional stations throughout Australia. (2) Since the Parliamentary excerpts unit started operations at the beginning of the budget session has it recorded the entire proceedings of both chambers in this place, including adjournment debates. (3) Is the ABC considering scrapping the Parliamentary excerpts unit and halting this valuable service to Australia's isolated areas and ending recording of the proceedings-a service which holds historical significance for future generations-because of the cost of the unit. (4) Has the Government any plans to continue the unbroken recording of parliamentary proceedings if the ABC closes the Parliamentary excerpts unit; if not, would the Government consider providing funds for the ABC to continue this important historical service and to continue its service for people in isolated parts of Australia who otherwise have no direct contact with what is said and done in the Parliament. (5) Will the Government make arrangements for the recordings taken to be preserved and retained as archival material. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice received from the ABC: (1) The ABC established a Parliamentary Excerpts Unit for the recording of Parliament and for the use of excerpts in National, State and Regional Radio and Television programs. (2) Yes. (3) The Parliamentary Excerpts Unit was set up in the ABC offices in Canberra at very short notice, with limited staff and no budget provision, on a trial basis after the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings reached agreement with the ABC and commercial organisations on the guidelines for the use of excerpts. During the December to February Parliamentary recess, the trial service was closely reviewed to see how it could be maintained on present finances, and the program use of material was evaluated. Since the resumption of Parliament on 11 February, the ABC has continued to provide a restricted service within current funding levels. (4) The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings is expected to table its report on the future of the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings, including the use of excerpts in the near future. Both Houses of the Parliament have agreed to the trial period of the broadcast of audio excerpts being extended to the end of the final sitting day in 1986. In view of the fact that the Committee's report is likely to be tabled shortly, it would be premature for the Government to make any plans concerning the funding of a parliamentary excerpts service, particularly if the plans were to pre-empt the Committee's findings. Any Government consideration of the matter would also have to take into account decisions taken by the Parliament. At this point, neither House has made any decision on the long term commitment to an excerpts service. (5) The ABC is concerned about its ability to preserve and retain the mounting Parliamentary archival material and discussions are taking place on this matter. Government consideration of this issue would best be undertaken after the Committee's report is tabled. (Question No. 799) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: Are guidelines provided for those who are authorised to conduct naturalisation ceremonies; if so, did the ceremony carried out on a ``submarine'' as reported on page 4 of the Sunday Mail of 19 January 1986 fall within these guidelines. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Guidelines on the conduct of ceremonies are set out in the Australian Citizenship Ceremony Handbook-A Guide for Civic Authorities. This handbook is provided to persons authorised to conduct citizenship ceremonies which should be conducted with due solemnity and dignity. As was reported in the Sunday Mail article, the ceremony was not conducted in a submarine of the war-like variety but in an underwater observatory. Citizenship ceremonies are sometimes held in natural surroundings, for example in the pleasant environment of a park. The marine environment of the Great Barrier Reef could be regarded as something of an equivalent setting. The presiding officer for the ceremony was the Chairman of the Calliope Shire Council, a person authorised to conduct citizenship ceremonies. I am assured that the ceremony was conducted with dignity and decorum, and was in accordance with the guidelines. (Question No. 803) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Did Pride Services Pty Ltd in 1980 apply for a telephone to be installed in a bus occupied by Mr David Lamb, whose address was Pollen Park, Koonyum Range via Mullumbimby. (2) Was a radio telephone (number 84 2575) supplied on 21 November 1980, at a cost to the taxpayer of approximately $20,000. (3) Has the number ever appeared in the local telephone directory under the name of Lamb or the company. (4) Was the receiver reported to the local Police to be missing in September 1982; if so, what were the results of police inquiries. (5) Was the missing equipment replaced at a cost to the taxpayer of approximately $16,000. (6) Did Telecom make any efforts to recover the missing equipment; if so, were these successful. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Yes. (2) The service was provided at a cost of about $20,000 to Telecom and $150 to Mr Lamb which was the amount of the installation fee required to be contributed by a subscriber under the rules applicable at the time. (3) Pride Services Pty Ltd requested silent line conditions on its application, consequently the telephone service was not listed in the Lismore area telephone directory. (4) There was no external report to the police that the receiver was missing. However, on 6 September 1982 it was reported to Telecom that the solar cells and some miscellaneous equipment associated with the radio telephone service had been stolen and this was in turn reported to the police. Telecom staff in conjunction with the local police investigated the matter, but the equipment has not been recovered. (5) The cost of replacing the missing apparatus was $3,000 which was met by Telecom under its policy of replacing equipment free of cost to the lessee where there is no evidence of negligence on the part of a subscriber. (6) See (4) above. (Question No. 804) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, 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 Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are ten statutory authorities (including statutory officeholders or statutory bodies with Offices not created by statute) in the Prime Minister's portfolio. (2) Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations (ACIR); Auditor-General; Australian Bicentennial Authority (registered in the ACT as a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Ordinance 1962); Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC); Commonwealth Ombudsman; Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC); Official Secretary to the Governor-General; Merit Protection and Review Agency (MPRA); Office of National Assessments (ONA); Public Service Board (PSB). (3) The bodies listed above are subject to provisions of the Ombudsman Act 1976, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (AD (JR) Act) and the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), except as listed below. The Ombudsman Act does not apply to the Auditor-General, or to decisions or actions of the MPRA or the PSB with respect to persons employed in the Australian Public Service or the service of a prescribed authority. The AD (JR) Act does not apply to some decisions of the Auditor-General or PSB. The FOI Act does not apply to the Auditor-General or ONA. In addition, the application of the FOI Act to the Official Secretary to the Governor-General is limited to those documents which relate to matters of an administrative nature. Of course the Ombudsman does not investigate his own actions and the functions of some statutory authorities are of such a nature that it seems unlikely that some of the above general mechanisms would be applied to any of their actions. There is no provision for appeals or complaints by the general public specifically against any of the bodies listed in part (2) of this answer, most of which do not deal directly with the public, except as outlined in the following paragraph. Employees covered by the Public Service Act 1922, and former employees, may have certain decisions and actions of the PSB reviewed or investigated by the MPRA. ACIR is a body corporate with perpetual succession, which may acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property and may be sued in its corporate name. (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. 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 bodies listed in part (2) of this answer are not statutorily protected against general liability in tort, except as outlined in the following paragraph: ASTEC, MPRA and the Ombudsman are statutorily protected against suits relating to acts done in good faith for the purposes of the respective legislation. The PSB is statutorily protected against suits relating to the performance of its duties. (5) As at 4 April 1986, there was one case-in which the Public Service Board was the respondent-concerning the bodies listed in part (2) of this answer before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The application in that case was made to the AAT on 6 September 1985 and the case heard on 13 March 1986. The decision is awaited. (6) Not applicable. (Question No. 807) Senator Mason asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspices of the Minister's Department. (2) What are the names of those 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 answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) 2 groups of statutory committees. (2) (a) Under the National Health Act 1953, Nursing Home Fees Review Committee of Inquiry for each State; (b) Under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974, a Nursing Homes Advisory Committee for each State. (3) None is provided by the establishing legislation. The Committees themselves are mechanisms for review of decisions made by the Minister or departmental delegates. (4) The function of each of the bodies is to review departmental decisions and to provide advice to the Minister for Community Services. They do not employ staff. (5) None; N/A. (6) N/A. (Question No. 821) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 12 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 Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Two. (2) The Australian National Railways Commission (AN) and the Australian Shipping Commission (ANL). (3) Provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 apply to both authorities in appropriate cases. Further, provisions of the Ombudsman Act 1976 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 are applicable to AN, in cases where actions or decisions taken, affect the interests of a member of the public. ANL is not subject to either of these Acts. (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 (1) of this question is statutorily protected against general liability in tort. (5) None. (6) Not applicable. (Question No. 890) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: (1) What has been the estimated value of the defence offsets commitment outstanding at the end of each financial year since the start of the defence offsets program. (2) What, during each financial year since July 1980, has been the estimated value of (a) defence offsets commitments entered into; (b) research and development work carried out in Australia as part of the discharge of defence offsets obligations; and (c) what benefits of technology have accrued to Australia in each of these years. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The offsets program was initiated in 1970 following Government consideration of a report of an Australian Defence Industry Mission's visit to the United States in 1969 and related solely to the purchase overseas of defence equipment. Bookkeeping methods at that time do not allow me to determine the information you seek. The standard of records kept since 1980 has improved and will improve further due to the establishment within my Department of a central offsets recording section in 1985. Available information on the estimated value of defence offsets commitments entered into and outstanding in each financial year since July 1980 is shown in Table 1. Technology transfer and research and development have always been on integral part of the defence offsets program. These aspects have been given increased emphasis following the Government's consideration of the Report of the Committee of Review on offsets, the results of which were announced in January this year. Some recent examples of research and development tasks undertaken by Australian industry as a result of the defence offsets program are: development of a smoke free motor for the Bofors RBS 70 missile development of the interface unit between the Teledyne IFF unit and the Bofors RBS 70 missile system. It is not generally possible to quantify, on an annual basis, the benefits of the technology transferred as a result of the offsets program. Technology transfer can and does improve management and manufacturing skills and also can provide a base for further local development which may occur over a number of years. Some major technological benefits have resulted from the offsets program, identified in the report to the Prime Minister by the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) on ``Government Purchasing and Offsets Policies in Industrial Innovation'' (August 1984), and are shown in Table 2. Table 1 Year 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Estimated value of: (a) Offset obligation entered into ($m)... 21.3 520.9 123.3 34.3 16.6 14.0 (b) Outstanding offset obligation ($m)... 175 653.9 745.8 754 660.7 596.9 Table 2 MAJOR DIRECT TECHNOLOGICAL BENEFITS FROM THE OFFSETS PROGRAM AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY bonding processed for multi-layer aircraft skins and components; automatic riveting; hot-forming processes for aircraft structural items; aladining (surface process prior to painting); ultrasonic flaw detection techniques; composite structure; jet engine blade production techniques; numerically controlled machine technology; and chemical milling techniques. COMPUTER INDUSTRY improvements in software developments; computer terminal production technology; and high precision machining and manufacture of computer components. ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY multi-layer circuit board production; and various digital technology components of telecommunications equipment. OTHER INDUSTRY Benefits have accrued in casting, forging, welding and fire protection technology. (Question No. 893) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Will the Minister for Communications advise details of all Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) staffing comparisons by State. (2) Why is this information not published in the ABC's Annual Report. (3) What steps are being taken by the ABC to correct staffing imbalances between States. (4) When will Queensland staffing levels realistically reflect recognition of the decentralised needs of the ABC in that State. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice received from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC): (1) Details of all ABC staffing comparisons by State as at 8 February, 1986, are as follows: New South Wales ... 2,822 Victoria... 1,432 Queensland... 579 South Australia ... 590 Western Australia ... 511 Tasmania ... 465 ACT... 109 Northern Territory... 62 Overseas... 55 Total... 6,625 (2) Staff numbers are published on a State basis in the ABC Annual Report. (3) The number of staff employed in each State is directly related to work-load requirements, that is, the amount of program production necessary to meet broadcast objectives. Numbers fluctuate on a day-to-day basis due to the demands of program output and the natural movement of people into and out of the organisation. (4) The ABC's strategy of allocating staff in decentralised States, such as Queensland, is not based solely on geographical and distance factors. The technological methods of transmitting radio and television programs strongly influence how many staff are needed and where they should be located. With sophisticated networking and satellite facilities now available, the ABC is able to broadcast to many areas of Queensland never previously reached. Other factors which influence staff numbers in decentralised areas are the degree of local demand, the community of interest in particular geographic regions, and the pace at which the ABC can move to fund and provide increased broadcasting services. During 1985/86 the ABC's Queensland services have increased as follows: a new office was opened in Mt. Isa local broadcasting was established on Thursday Island additional Radio personnel are currently being recruited for the Cairns and Mackay offices. Already the ABC has a strong presence in a number of northern regional areas in Queensland. Townsville, for example, has one of the ABC's largest regional stations. It is a major program developer and source and has a total of 58 staff. These developments continue to reflect the ABC's intentions to provide a comprehensive broadcasting service in Queensland, within the scope of its overall responsibilities as the national broadcaster. (Question No. 898) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: (1) Has concern been generated in voluntary organisations and churches over the potential impact upon their workers of the proposed tax on fringe benefits. (2) What assurance is the Treasurer able to give churches and other organisations which are non-profit voluntary groups and which contribute greatly to the welfare of the Australian community, that their workers will remain exempt from taxation of benefits such as assistance with housing, telephone rental, provision of a vehicle etc, particularly in remote areas, and the provision of a return economy airfare for home leave. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Since the decision on the fringe benefits tax was announced on 19 September 1985, a number of voluntary organisations and churches have made representations concerning the scope and application of the fringe benefits tax. Government Ministers have met with representatives of a number of these organisations. We have given thorough consideration to their concerns and have been able to reassure them on a number of points, including that the tax will be levied only on the private benefit, if any, received by an employee. For many such benefits, the tax will be levied at highly concessionary rates. (2) As the tax will be levied on the employers, employees of these organisations will be exempt from income taxation on benefits they receive. To the extent that employees of such organisations would be now paying income tax on any fringe benefits received, in accordance with the current law, such employees will be better off personally as a result of the changes. I also announced on 28 November 1985 that the Government will consider sympathetically any instances where the fringe benefits tax has an unduly onerous impact on the welfare services provided by charitable organisations. (Question No. 908) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) Are visas going to be refused to South African rugby players wishing to participate in a rugby competition in Sydney later in 1986, as was reported on AM on Friday 14 February; if so, will the Government also adopt a similar policy towards future sporting contact with the Soviet Union, in view of that country's acts of genocide against the Afghanistan people. (2) Does the Federal Government regard the systematic annihilation of the Afghanistan people, 6 million of whom have been murdered or fled their country since the Soviet Union invaded in 1978, as less reprehensible than South Africa's apartheid policies. (3) Would the Government consider that there may be more benefit encouraging the trend that the South African Government is now making towards dismantling the apartheid system, by increasing sporting contacts, particularly given that participation in national sporting teams in South Africa is now open to all races. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I assume that the honourable Senator's question refers to reports that the New South Wales Rugby Union was considering inviting a South African team to compete in an international seven-a-side championship in Sydney in March. As far as I am aware no such invitation was issued by the NSW Rugby Union. I understand that the NSW Rugby Union sought clarification of the Government's sporting contacts policy via an enquiry from the Australian Rugby Football Union to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. The issue of visas for them would be a matter for the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It is quite clear, however, that such a visit would have been contrary to current policy which prohibits the entry of South African sporting teams for competition in Australia. The Government's attitude to sporting links with South Africa is firmly based on Australia's support for the 1977 Gleneagles declaration of Commonwealth Heads of Government in which they undertook a firm commitment to discourage sporting contacts with South Africa or with any other country practising racial discrimination in sport. South Africa, as the only country to institutionalise a policy of racial discrimination affecting all aspects of social life, including sport, by incorporating discrimination within its Constitution, is the only country affected by the Gleneagles declaration. (2) The Government's policy towards South Africa is not inconsistent with the Government's attitude to the involvement of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The Australian Government is firmly committed to the promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world. Australia has made known its concern about gross and persistent abuses of human rights wherever they occur. The situation in Afghanistan, involving as it does the presence of foreign forces and the subjugation by external means of the entire population, regardless of ethnic origin, cannot be equated with the apartheid policies of the South African Government. Australia has condemned on numerous occasions the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and has frequently expressed its deep concern over the needless loss of life and suffering of the people of Afghanistan resulting from the continued occupation of their country. (3) The Government is well aware that in recent years there have been some changes in South Africa which give the appearance of progress towards non-racial sport, most recently the joint declaration by the majority of South African sporting organisations which rejected apartheid in sport. Australia is encouraged that the need for change is understood in South Africa. The Australian Government would welcome the introduction of genuine non-racial sport in South Africa and the entry of a non-racial South Africa to international competition. The Australian Government is, however, disappointed that progress towards eliminating apartheid in sport has so far been limited. There is still no equality in the provision of facilities or opportunities for non-white sportsmen and women in South Africa. Moreover, non-whites remain subject to the full weight of apartheid's racial discrimination outside the area of sport. The Australian Government does not believe sport can be viewed in isolation, and does not accept that completely non-racial sport can be played in a society based on apartheid. The Government believes that the international sports boycott has been effective in encouraging change in South African sport. It is only through continued international pressure that further changes can be expected. The Government is committed to encouraging multi-racial sport in South Africa and accordingly does not believe that now is an appropriate time to ease pressure on the South African authorities to move decisively towards the establishment of a society in which sport on a non-racial basis can be practised. (Question No. 936) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: Is it true that the Australian Government is planning to move the administration of the Development Import Finance Facility to the Department of Trade; if so, will this not increase the commercialisation of aid. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government is currently reviewing the operation of the Development Import Finance Facility (DIFF). The Department of Trade argued in its submissions to the Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program (the Jackson Committee) and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which reviewed the Jackson Report, that, to the extent aid and trade objectives can complement one another, there should be a greater commercial orientation in Australia's aid program. The Department has also argued that the Australian Trade Commission's Export Finance and Insurance Group should be more directly involved in the day-to-day administration of the DIFF. However, as far as the future administration of the DIFF is concerned, no decision to alter existing arrangements has yet been made. (Question No. 972) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) What is the determined policy of the Department in relation to de facto relationships. (2) How is this policy implemented in departmental assessment of individual claims for benefits. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs policy regarding de facto relationships is strictly in accordance with Pubic Service Guidelines; i.e. `a person living with an officer of the Department as a spouse on a bona fide domestic basis, although not legally married to the officer, is recognised as a dependant'. (2) An officer in a recognised de facto relationship is eligible to have that relationship recognised for the purpose of `claims for benefits'. (Question No. 979) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Was the Department of Aboriginal Affairs consulted on the selection of the 42 communities identified in the 20 January 1986 statement of the Minister for Communications on the remote or underserved communities scheme; if so, what consultations were subsequently undertaken with Aboriginal and Islander communities through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Aboriginal communities included in the remote or underserved communities scheme by the Department of Communications were chosen on the basis of population size. While there was no formal consultation with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, there were discussions between officers of the two departments in order to determine accurately the populations of some communities, to ensure that they were above the threshold for inclusion on the remote or underserved communities scheme schedule. (Question No. 219) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) What was the projected number of overseas tourists expected through the Cairns International Airport in the first 12 months of the Airport's operation prior to its official opening. (2) What is the actual number of international tourists who have used the Cairns International Airport to date and what are the countries of origin of these tourists. (3) What international carriers use Cairns International Airport as a point of entry to or exit from Australia, and what is the number of passengers using each carrier. (4) What have been the financial benefits to Australian national carriers of the Cairns International Airport. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No forecasts were prepared of overseas tourist numbers expected during the twelve-month period prior to the Airport's official opening in March 1984. Forecasts are only prepared on a five-yearly basis for the start-of-decade and mid-decade years and do not identify tourists separately from visitors travelling for other purposes, such as business or education. Forecasts were however prepared in 1983 for total expected passenger movements of 34,500 in 1985. In the absence of historical data, these forecasts were based on the routes which were expected to be introduced and population patterns in the North Queensland area. (2) Information on the number of international tourists through Cairns International Airport to date is not available. Information is however available on the number of visitors (including tourists) who used Cairns International Airport, by country of residence (where country of residence is that stated by passengers on immigration cards). The following table was prepared from data provided by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and is the latest data available. COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE OF VISITORS USING CAIRNS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Country of residence 1984 Jan-May 1985 Americas Canada... 3074 1369 USA... 19731 5812 Other... 122 16 Asia Hong Kong... 13 8 Indonesia... 2482 938 Japan... 66 45 Malaysia... 18 6 Philippines... 313 205 Singapore... 67 44 Thailand... 30 4 Other... 32 29 Europe Austria... 111 63 France... 46 11 Germany... 224 91 Italy... 52 - Netherlands... 50 7 Switzerland... 77 25 UK/Ire. ... 573 327 Other... 20 18 Pacific & Oceania Australia... 86 111 Fiji... 4 3 NZ... 656 147 PNG... 7165 3398 Other... 19 9 Africa... 33 9 Middle East... 55 18 Scandinavia... 118 32 Other... 579 131 Total visitors... 35816 12876 (3) The only international carriers currently using Cairns as a point of entry to or exit from Australia are Qantas, which had a twice weekly Cairns-North America (USA and Canada) service, Air Niugini which operates a Cairns-Port Moresby service five times a week and Japan Air Lines which operates a joint weekly service between Brisbane and Tokyo via Cairns with Qantas. In addition, Qantas carries some passengers to other destinations via its Australian sector connections. The latest data available is for 1985, and shows the following passengers carried on each route. No data is available as yet for the Qantas/JAL service which commenced on 2 April 1986. 1985 In Out Total A Cairns-North America Mar Quarter... 2006 1895 3901 June Quarter... 4895 2915 7810 Sept Quarter... 4435 3091 7526 Dec Quarter... 5233 3117 8350 Total... 16569 11018 27587 B Cairns-Port Moresby Mar Quarter... 2107 2055 4162 June Quarter... 1894 1964 3858 Sept Quarter... 3019 2838 5857 Dec Quarter... 3355 2798 6153 Total... 10375 9655 20030 Cairns-Other 1985... - 30 30 Total... 26944 20703 47647 (4) Details of the financial benefits to Qantas of the Cairns International Airport are not available to the Department as they are commercial information which would not normally be made public by the company. There can be no doubt however that the ability to schedule direct services to Cairns represents a potential advantage to Qantas. An indicator of the potential benefit to Qantas is the fact that Qantas has carried some 52,000 passengers to and from Cairns since the international airport was opened. (Question No. 984) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 March 1986: (1) What has been the total cost of the recent Royal Visit to Australia. (2) What were the costs incurred by (a) State Governments, (b) Local Governments and (c) the Australian Government and how were these costs incurred. (3) Can the Prime Minister provide details of the numbers of officials of Departments, the time they spent in relation to the trip and the cost to each Department of such officials' inter-relationship with the Royal visit. Senator Button —The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Under the appropriations of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for 1985/86 (division 500/03/04), $700,000 was provided for the visit to Australia in March 1986 of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. The following is the breakdown of that figure: $ Government Hospitality...10,000 Printing...15,000 External Air Transport...400,000 Road Transport...200,000 Accommodation...40,000 Miscellaneous...35,000 $700,000 Charges of the visit have not yet been brought to account. Charges relating to the use of RAAF 34 Squadron aircraft will be brought to account under the separate appropriation for the use of special purpose aircraft. They are estimated to be about $43,000. The Commonwealth Government does not have access to costs incurred for the Royal Visit by State or Local Governments. (3) Officers from the following Departments co- operated in the planning and execution of the visit-Prime Minister and Cabinet, Special Minister of State, Defence, Aviation, Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Communications, and Local Government and Administrative Services. The Officers were involved with the visit as part of their normal duties and their salaries and travel costs are borne by the departments concerned and are not separately costed to the visit. (Question No. 989) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: What enquiries, reports and reviews, both Government and independent, have been carried out in the last 5 years in respect of the following- (a) the Antarctic Division; (b) The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and its divisions; (c) the Anglo-Australian Telescope; (d) the Australian Institute of Marine Science; (e) the Australian Research Grants Scheme; (f) the Patents, Trademarks and Designs Office; (g) the Bureau of Meteorology; (h) the National Standards Commission; (i) the Space Projects Branch; (j) the Commission for the Future; and (k) the Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Grants scheme. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Antarctic Division Year Organisation Subject 1981 Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Redevelopment of Australian Antarctic bases 1983 Public Service Board Review of purchasing and supply Public Service Board Joint review of control and issue of clothing and field equipment Joint management review 1984 J P Young & Assoc Review of ADP requirements of the Antarctic Division Australian Institute of Physics Upper Atmospheric Physics review Public Service Board Determination on medical officers remuneration Determination on Antarctic allowance 1985 Senate Standing Committee on National Resources Inquiry into natural resources Review Committee Antarctic rebuilding program 1986 Auditor-General Antarctic rebuilding program (b) Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and its Divisions. Reviews are important components of CSIRO's internal accountability, evaluation and planning procedures. Review committees generally include representatives from industry, government, academia, the community, other user groups, CSIRO management and staff associations. They are usually chaired by external members. Four categories of reviews are conducted: Divisional; Institute; Subject; and Management. Divisional Reviews are normally conducted about eighteen months before the end of the term of appointment of the Chief (usually seven years). The objectives are to evaluate current research programs and recent achievements and to formulate future roles and research directions. 1981 Wildlife research Chemical technology Land research management/land use research Mechanical engineering Soils Division of Animal Production Cloud Physics Mathematics and statistics Applied geomechanics/mineral engineering 1982 Textile industry Building research Wheat Research Unit Irrigation research 1983 Fossil fuels Materials science Protein Chemistry/Molecular Cellular Biology Unit 1984 Computing research Human nutrition Mineralogy/mineral physics 1985 Horticultural research Plant industry Tropical crops and pastures Food research Institute Reviews consider the structure, management and broader policy issues of Institutes and the interaction between their component Divisions. 1981 Institute of Industrial Technology 1982 Institute of Physical Sciences 1983 Institute of Biological Resources Institute of Energy and Energy Resources 1985 Bureau of Scientific Services Subject Reviews examine major topics which relate to a number of Divisions or Institutes and identify priority areas for research. 1981 Biotechnology 1982 Atmospheric sciences Rangelands research Agricultural research in CSIRO 1983 Plant Pathology 1985 Calibration services 1986 Material science and technology Management Reviews examine the efficiency and effectiveness of research and administrative services and facilities, and identify future requirements and priorities. 1982 Printing Unit International activities Administration arrangements 1983 Australian journals of scientific research Commercial activities Safety and Health 1984 CSIRO archives Library and information services CSIRO's strategic planning activities 1985 CSIROs external communication activities Government Review Future Directions for CSIRO. A Report to the Prime Minister by the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC), November 1985. (c) Anglo-Australian Telescope: Nil Year Organisation Subject (d) Australian Institute of Marine Science 1982 Australian Marine Science and Technology Advisory Committee Review of development and staffing (e) Australian Research Grants Scheme 1982 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Reviews of national science policies 1983 Australian Science and Technology Council Operation of National Research Granting Schemes 1984 Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee Australian Research Grants Scheme-research funding survey 1984 1986 Australian Science and Technology Council Public investment in research and development in Australia (f) Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office 1981 Industrial Property Advisory Committee Extensions of the convention period under the Patents Act Industrial Property Advisory Committee Registration of service marks under the Trade Marks Act 1955 and the protection of company and business names 1982 University of Queensland Economic effects of the Australian Patent System Logica Pty Ltd Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office system strategy study 1984 Industrial Property Advisory Committee Patents, innovation and competition in Australia 1985 Industrial Property Advisory Committee Provisions of the Designs Act 1906 relating to infringement of articles imported from abroad (g) Bureau of Meteorology 1981 Public Service Board Structure of Head Office 1982 Dr C. H. B. Priestley Research in the Bureau of Meteorology 1983 Australian Science and Technology Council Technical assessment of the 10-year capital re-equipment program 1984 Auditor-General Efficient audit of the observations program 1986 Australian Science and Technology Council Progress of the Bureau's capital re-equipment program House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure Inquiry into meteorological services (h) National Standards Commission 1985 W. D. Scott Review of the trade measurement system (i) Space Projects Branch Nil (j) Commission for the Future Nil (k) Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Grants Scheme 1981 Australian Science and Technology Council Basic research and national objectives 1986 Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee Review of the MST Grants Scheme (Question No. 997) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: When is it anticipated that the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979 will be reprinted. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: August 1986. (Question No. 1002) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is the Minister for Community Services able to report on some of the special provisions being made to assist child care centres in remote communities where changed fee structures need adjustment to enable these centres to maintain their staffing levels. (2) What kind of fee relief will be available for low income families requiring occasional care. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) I have acknowledged that some child care centres in remote areas may need special assistance. When I issued a press release clarifying some issues relating to the new funding arrangements, I mentioned that some centres may need special assistance and remote services were given as an example. During the next few months my Department will be working to provide the management assistance to high cost services which has been promised as part of the Transitional Assistance arrangements. Some centres in remote areas will be part of this process. The process will also provide information to enable me to make decisions about special provisions for child care centres in remote areas. (2) A proposal is being drafted on funding occasional care services under the Children's Services Program. I expect that this proposal, which would include details of any fee relief system, will be submitted to me shortly. (Question No. 1003) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Can the Minister for Finance explain some of the anomalies in granting eligibility for tax deductibility for donations. In particular, can the Minister explain why the Stockman's Hall of Fame is entitled to tax deductibility, while the Royal Flying Doctor Service Memorial in Cloncurry is ineligible. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The income tax law specifies public libraries, public museums or public art galleries, or institutions consisting of a public library, public museum and public art gallery or any two of them, as bodies to which tax deductible gifts may be made. The Commissioner of Taxation has informed me that the Australian Stockman's Hall of Fame and Outback Heritage Centre at Longreach has been accepted as one of these bodies. He has also informed me that action is currently in course to establish whether the Royal Flying Doctor Service Memorial in Cloncurry also qualifies. (Question No. 1005) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) What were the number of occasions in 1985 on which corporal punishment was administered to-(a) boys; (b) girls; and (c) in total, for each school for which the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority is responsible. (2) On how many of those occasions was a parent or guardian notified of the administration of the corporal punishment-(a) in writing; (b) by telephone; (c) by personal interview; (d) by any other means; and (e) in total. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following response to the honourable senator's question: (1) The following schools administered by the ACT Schools Authority reported incidents of corporal punishment for 1985: School (a) Male (b) Female (c) Total Lyneham Primary School... 2 0 2 Torrens Primary School... 1 0 1 Weston Primary School... 1 0 1 Higgins Primary School... 4 0 4 Scullin Primary School... 7 0 7 Village Creek Primary School... 1 0 1 Campbell High School... 5 0 5 Lyneham High School... 22 0 22 Watson High School... 1 0 1 Charnwood High School... 61 0 61 Melba High School... 8 0 8 Belconnen High School... 2 0 2 Ginninderra High School... 17 0 17 Kambah High School... 9 0 9 eWanniassa High School... 3 0 3 Of the remaining 8 colleges, 11 high schools, 63 primary schools, 75 preschools and 10 other educational centres administered by the ACT Schools Authority, there were no reported incidents of corporal punishment in 1985. (2) Of the reported incidents of corporal punishment in 1985 a parent or guardian was notified in 140 cases in the following ways: (a) in writing, 124 (b) by telephone, 10 (c) by personal interview, 6 (d) by any other means, 0 (e) in total, 140 In two incidents of corporal punishment at Kambah High School the principal's professional judgement was that the matter was best left between the student and the school. In the one incident at Watson High School there is uncertainty as to whether a letter was sent. In one incident at Melba High School no copy of a letter to a parent or guardian is on file. (Question No. 1007) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) Were income taxation data collected for all postcodes within each Federal Electoral Division in the preparation of the document ``Taxation Statistics'' 1982/83, supplement to the 62nd Report to Parliament by the Commissioner of Taxation. (2) If data were collected for all postcodes, what information is available as to number if taxpayers, taxable income and net tax paid, in the postcodes 5723 (Coober Pedy) and 5722 (Andamooka) in the Grey Electoral division. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Income tax data were published on an Electoral Division and postcode basis in ``Taxation Statistics'' 1982-83 (Parliamentary Paper 48/1985). However, where less than 1000 returns for a particular postcode were lodged, the statistics were grouped together and published as `Others' for each electorate. (2) The information (which was incorporated in the category `Other' for the Electoral Division of Grey) for Andamooka and Coober Pedy is as follows: Non-Taxable No. No. Taxable Tax-able Income Net Tax $'000 $'000 Andamooka (5722)... 117 106 1676 340 Coober Pedy (5723)... 441 412 5880 989 (Question No. 1009)) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) Does the Commonwealth Government's Australian Design Rule require all imported motor vehicles to carry a compliance plate issued by the Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board. (2) Can a motor vehicle be imported from overseas without a compliance plate if the vehicle has been owned and used for a period of not less than 3 months prior to shipment to Australia in South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales. (3) Does the 3 month restriction not apply to motor vehicles purchased by the owner overseas in Western Australian (WA), the Northern Territory (NT) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). (4) Is there a danger that if a resident of, Victoria, for example, purchases such a vehicle when re-sold in WA, NT or the ACT, he or she cannot then register the vehicle in Victoria. (5) What safeguards, if any, are provided for persons buying such previously imported motor vehicles interstate. (6) Is the Commonwealth considering any moves to bring the regulations affecting imported vehicles into conformity. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Compliance plates issued by the Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board are used by State and Territory registration authorities to assess vehicles. They are not a pre-requisite for importation to Australia. (2) I am advised that this is the case. (3) I am advised that the three month restriction does not apply. (4) I understand that States and Territories generally register vehicles which have been previously registered in other States or Territories provided that they are satisfied that the vehicle was purchased in good faith and the vehicle meets certain safety requirements. I am advised that New South Wales will not register vehicles imported since 1983 without a compliance plate unless they are satisfied that the 3 month requirement has been met, except in the case of migrants or where the vehicle is to be used for engineering or market evaluation. (5) Re-registration of a vehicle in another State or Territory is a matter for negotiation between the owner and the registering authority. (6) Commonwealth concern is to ensure that reasonable safety standards apply and that there is uniformity in the conditions for registration of vehicles throughout Australia. The Australian Transport Advisory Council comprising Federal, State and Territory Transport Ministers recently recommended that all vehicles carry a compliance plate or other identification plate approved by the Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board as a pre-requisite for registration. This is to apply to personally imported vehicles, vehicles imported for engineering or market evaluation, commercially imported second hand vehicles, and new vehicles. In addition, as a result of Commonwealth initiatives, the Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board now conducts inspections of new vehicle models to ensure that they can be registered throughout Australia. (Question No. 1011)) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: (1) How many-(a) tonnes; and (b) m3, has WA Chip and Pulp Pty Ltd exported every year since, and including 1976. (2) For each of the amounts given in (1), how many-(a) tonnes; and (b) m3, are (a) karri; (b) marri; and (c) other species (please specify). Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) It is not Government policy to reveal information which has been provided by Australian manufacturers on the basis of commercial confidentiality. However, I understand relevant statistics are published in the annual reports of the Bunbury Port Authority. (2) The proportion of karri and marri logs accepted for chipping by WA Chip and Pulp Co. Pty Ltd from State forests since 1976 is as follows: karri marri 1976-77... 34% 66% 1977-78... 24% 76% 1978-79... 22% 78% 1979-80... 22% 78% 1980-81... 24% 76% 1981-82... 30% 70% 1982-83... 30% 70% 1983-84... 23% 77% 1984-85... 19% 81% The actual proportion of karri and marri chips in a karri/marri export shipment is influenced by the admixture of chips produced from sawmill residues and logs derived from private property. Approximately half a shipload of jarrah chips was included in each of two karri/marri shipments made in December 1979 and January 1980. Three full shiploads of jarrah chips have been exported since then. Reference may also be made to the response of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry to a question on notice by Senator Jack Evans-Question No. 509 of 15 November 1983-which sought similar information. The response appeared in the Senate Hansard of 15 December 1983. (Question No. 1012) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Aviation, through the Department granted dispensations in the past, to holders of foreign commercial pilots' licences, to allow them to operate as commercial pilots in Australia. (2) Under what circumstances does the Minister grant such dispensations to holders of foreign commercial pilots' licences. (3) How many such dispensations have been granted by the Minister or the Department since 1 January 1970. (4) What licence did the pilot hold, and what licence were they granted in Australia, in each case enumerated in (3). (5) What part of the licence requirements was waived, in the case of partial dispensations. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) A visiting foreign pilot may have his overseas commercial licence temporarily validated for use in Australia pursuant to Air Navigation Regulation 66. Such pilots are required to pass the Air Legislation examination and the period of the validation is normally limited to one month. If the applicant is a resident of Australia or intends to take up residency then an Australian Commercial Pilot Licence can be issued subject to the applicant meeting certain requirements. These requirements are detailed in a Departmental pamphlet entitled ``Guide for the Recognition of Foreign Pilots' Licences and Military Qualifications'' available from all Regional Offices of my Department. All such applicants for Australian commercial licences must pass the appropriate medical and air legislation examinations, and meet all aeronautical experience requirements prescribed for that category of licence. In practice the Department also requires evidence that the applicant has made significant use of the foreign licence as pilot in command of overseas commercial operations. (3)-(5) My Department has had no requirement to record the statistics which you have requested. On 30 June 1985 there were 5,987 Australian commercial pilot licences on issue. The only way the information sought could now be retrieved would be to individually inspect every commercial pilot licence holder's flight crew history file. (Question No. 1013) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 April 1986: (1) In what way is measured aircraft noise associated with aircraft performance such that the information is classified and that the release of this information is deemed to threaten the security of the nation. (See Question without Notice on 20 March 1986, Hansard, p. 1336.) Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) When preparing a reply to your Question without Notice of 20 March 1986 concerning Exercise Pitch Black, RAAF was under the impression that engine noise signature diagrams were classified. Subsequent investigations have revealed that such is not the case. Noise signatures of certain engines are often classified by the manufacturer, but such classification no longer applies to any engines in operation with the RAAF. (Question No. 1014) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 April 1986: (1) Has there been concern expressed by local residents living in the area of the Salt Ash Bombing Range at the noise that occurs when the range is being used by the Royal Australian Air Force for exercises. (2) Was the land for the Salt Ash Bombing Range purchased in 1953 when it was impossible to predict the noise level associated with aircraft that might be used in 1986. (3) Is there in the area of the Bombing Range: (a) no ambulance station; (b) only one access road; (c) one volunteer fire brigade unit; (d) no hospital; and (e) no State Emergency Service office. (4) Is the nearest State Emergency Service office located at Raymond Terrace, which is approximately 28 kilometres away. (5) Has the Department of Defence repeatedly advised the local council since the mid 1960s not to allow further developments in the area. (6) Is the local council reluctant to stop such developments because of the threat of legal action from the local developers who own the land and is this because the Department of Defence will not provide the council with records of sound level noise experienced at ground level when the bombing range is being used by the RAAF, such that any argument that the local council may have for not wanting developments in the area could not be substantiated in a court of law. (7) Has the Department of Defence conducted a feasibility study which inquired into the possibility of locating the Bombing Range at another site; if so- (a) what other sites were considered; (b) what were the main advantages and disadvantages with each site; and (c) if a more favourable site has been identified, when will the Bombing Range be relocated. (8) Did Air Commodores Monaghan and Bomball admit to local residents on separate occasions the following- (a) that the exercises could be conducted out to sea without affecting the success of the exercises whatsoever; and (b) that in such a case, the only land that would be required would be enough to house the measuring equipment which could be located in 2 tin sheds. (9) Can planes using the Bombing Range approach and leave the range from only one angle. (10) Did an independent acoustical report conducted by Caleb Smith Consulting Pty Ltd find that: ``(a) Mirage low level rocket firing practice produced average maximum noise levels at Salt Ash Public School of 72db (A), and of 900db (A) at Parklands residential estate; and that the particular distressing high frequency jet scream reached maximum sound pressure levels of 81db (A) at Salt Ash Public School and 95db (A) at Parklands residential estate, level equivalent to hearing a chain saw at half a metre distance.'' (11) When exercises are being conducted, must pilots avoid the enemy's radar and is the only way to do this by flying at a distance below 500 feet and thereby accentuating the noise level even further. (12) Are many of these aircraft being flown by young, relatively inexperienced pilots who, despite advice from superiors, fly as close to the ground as possible to disturb the livestock. (13) How many planes have crashed in the vicinity of the Salt Ash Weapons Range for each year since 1953. (14) Would the Minister for Defence agree that the Salt Ash Weapons Range is no longer suitable to be used as a Bombing Range, given all of the above. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Although Commonwealth acquisition of land within the Range did not commence until 1972, the Salt Ash Range was proclaimed for Air Force training in 1953, at which time it was not possible to predict noise levels associated with aircraft that might be used in 1986. (3) (a) Ambulance stations are at RAAF Base Williamstown (8 km from the range), Raymond Terrace (28 km), Port Stephens (30 km) and Newcastle (30 km). (b) The one access road to the range is usable in all weathers. (c) There are about 10 volunteer fire brigades units within 30 km of the range. There are four fire stations within 30 km of the range with the nearest at RAAF Williamtown. (d) The nearest hospital to the range is at Newcastle. A medical centre is located at RAAF Base Williamtown. (e) State Emergency Service offices are located at Raymond Terrace and Newcastle. (4) Yes. (5) Records indicate that it was not until 1975 that the Department of Defence formally advised the Port Stephens Shire Council against further residential development adjacent to the range. However, since 1965 when the Mirage aircraft was introduced in RAAF service, local residents would have been aware of increased noise levels associated with jet aircraft operations on the range. (6) I cannot speak for the Port Stephens Shire Council. However, in 1976 the Council was given Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) maps pertaining to aircraft operations on the range up to 1985. The NEF system was at that time based on US criteria which was later refined to reflect Australian conditions. Australian NEF (ANEF) maps were forwarded to the Council in 1984, covering forecast range activities up to 1990. The Council has not sought further information on noise levels from Department of Defence. (7) There is a need for the range to be near the fighter base so as to maximise the efficiency of training activities. (a) An examination of other possible locations concluded that there were no alternative range sites within a reasonable distance of Williamtown which would have any less impact on the surrounding community than the range at Salt Ash. (b) The PWC Report of 1983 relating to RAAF Base Williamtown Hornet Facilities Development recommended, inter alia, that `RAAF Base Williamtown is the most economical location for Tactical Fighter Force aircraft. Air-to-ground weapons training should continue at Salt Ash Range'. (c) There is no perceived Defence need to relocate the range. (8) (a) No. (b) No. (9) No, aircraft involved in certain weapons exercises are restricted to two approach directions for safety reasons: however, approaches may be made from almost any direction for visual single-pass practice bombing exercises. (10) Defence did not receive a copy of the Caleb Smith Consulting Pty Ltd Report, but is aware that it contained the findings quoted. (11) Avoidance of detection by radar is essential for operational success. The most suitable method available to RAAF aircraft to avoid detection is to operate at low level. The altitude at which this is effective or permitted is determined by the topography of the area and the route being flown, but may be below 500 feet. (12) Salt Ash Weapons Range is often used to train young, relatively inexperienced pilots. Their flights are strictly controlled and monitored by experienced staff members in the vicinity, both on the ground and in the air. RAAF aircrew do not intentionally disturb livestock. (13) The number of aircraft that have crashed in the vicinity of Salt Ash Weapons Range 1953 is as follows: 1968, 2; 1975, 1; 1979, 1; 1980, 1; 1981, 2; 1985, 1. Of these, only two aircraft were engaged in weapons delivery practice at the time of the accident. (14) No, Salt Ash Weapons Range is not a Bombing Range in the strictest sense, as bombing practice is restricted to smoke and flash practice bombs only. Operations at the range have been adversely affected by residential development in the area. Nonetheless, Air Force is still able to satisfactorily and safely achieve its training objectives at the range. Given the difficulty and cost involved in establishing a land-based range at another location within reasonable distance of RAAF Williamtown and considering the decided advantage which results from the proximity of Salt Ash Weapons Range to the base, it continues to be suitable for the purpose of practice, bombing and rocketry and air-to-ground gunnery. (Question No. 1017) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 April 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Aviation given consideration to the proposal of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory for the transfer of control of the Darwin and Alice Springs Airports, to the Northern Territory, for the purpose of allowing the Territory to redevelop Darwin Airport and upgrade Alice Springs Airport. (2) Does the proposal of the Chief Minister represent a genuine attempt by the Northern Territory Government to break the deadlock which has arisen in relation to these airports; if so, why has there been no response from the Federal Government, and is this failure to respond not just another example of the Labor Government's indifference to the Northern Territory's efforts to enhance its contribution to international and domestic travel. (3) What alternative plans, if any, does the Federal Government have to get the redevelopment of Darwin Airport underway again. (4) What plans does the Federal Government have to commence the upgrading of the Alice Springs Airport; if so what stage have they reached. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes (2) There is no deadlock. An appraisal of several options for the development of new facilities has been undertaken, to determine which most adequately meets the needs of the travelling public at Darwin, at minimum cost to them. The results of the study are now being considered. Northern Territory officials are participating with Commonwealth officers of the Department of Aviation on a working group considering development needs and ownership options at Alice Springs Airport. (3) Alternative plans for the recommencement of work are not necessary. The results of the reappraisal study of options for the Commonwealth provision of new facilities, at minimum cost to the travelling public, are being considered. (4) In answer to Question 2 above, I have indicated studies are underway in conjunction with the Northern Territory Government. When the studies are complete there will be a rigorous analysis with the industry to establish a program and timetable for necessary works. (Question No. 1021) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 15 April 1986: (1) What is the total land area in Australia which is foreign owned, in hectares, and as a percentage of total Australian land area. (2) For each country of origin of foreign ownership, what is the total land area owned in each State, in hectares, and as a percentage of total land area of that State. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Australian Bureau of Statistics has advised that there are no figures available on the total land area in Australia which is foreign owned. However, results of an ABS survey of foreign ownership of agricultural land as at 31 March 1984 showed that an estimated 28.5 million hectares were foreign owned representing 5.9 per cent of the total area of agricultural land in Australia. (2) Figures from the survey showed that most foreign ownership of agricultural land was attributed to the USA and UK. Details for each State are as follows. FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND-31 MARCH 1984 USA UK Other Total '000 hectares (%) NSW... 315.4 (0.5) 171.3 (0.3) 240.0 (0.3) 726.7 (1.1) VIC... 9.3 (0.1) 31.0 (0.2) 17.1 (0.1) 57.4 (0.4) QLD... 2,618.0 (1.7) 3,219.9 (2.0) 2,528.8 (1.6) 8,366.7 (5.3) SA... 478.4 (0.8) 2,204.3 (3.6) 8.4 (-) 2,691.1 (4.3) WA... 2,020.2 (1.8) 797.0 (0.7) 737.4 (0.6) 3,554,6 (3.1) TAS... 10.0 (0.5) 23.4 (1.1) 12.2 (0.5) 45.6 (2.1) NT... 3,144.7 (4.4) 5,448.9 (7.6) 4,455.6 (6.2) 13,049.2 (18.2) Senator Button —On 19 February 1986 (Hansard, page 605), Senator Archer asked me a question without notice relating to the productivity claim currently before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Specifically, he wanted to know whether the Government, in supporting the claim, had taken account of industries, such as farming, with relatively unfavourable productivity and profit performances. In my reply I undertook to refer the question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: The Government strongly supports the claim currently before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for improvements in conditions of employment on account of increased national productivity. Restraint exercised in their claims by wage and salary earners has been a vitally important factor contributing to the strong economic performance achieved by this Government under the Prices and Incomes Accord. The profit share (defined as the ratio of gross operating surplus of the private non-farm corporate sector to the gross product at factor cost of the private non-farm corporate sector) is now around the levels which prevailed in the 1960s and early 1970s, as are real unit labour costs-levels which the Fraser government's confrontationist approach could not achieve. The current claim is reasonable. Its magnitude (3% wage equivalent to be paid as superannuation; a little less than a 2.5% increase in labour costs) and its phased implementation render it consistent with a downward trend in inflation over the two year period from 1 July 1986, while leaving real unit labour costs substantially unchanged. The Government recognises that productivity growth differs between different sectors of the economy, but supports the distribution of these gains on a centralised and uniform basis. If the pattern of productivity distribution were left to be determined by decentralised bargaining at the industry or enterprise level, substantial increases in wages or conditions would be achieved in those industries or sectors of the economy where high rates of productivity growth or strong unions prevail. These large increases then would inevitably flow under comparative wage justice pressures to other industries and sectors, irrespective of the national interest or the state of the national economy. The outcome of such decentralised bargaining can be seen in the wage explosions of 1974-75 and 1981-82. In seeking the distribution of productivity on a national basis, the Government is thus ultimately acting in the best interests of all industries and sectors, by bringing stability, predictability, and moderation to the wages area. At the same time, it should be remembered that it is always open to any particular industry or sector of industry to argue before the Commission that increases in pay or improvements in conditions determined in National Wage Cases should not be extended to that sector, or should be delayed in application, on the grounds of incapacity to pay. In this context, the Government is very conscious of, and concerned about, the fact that the rural sector is going through very hard times. It would be open to employers in the industry to apply to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to defer any application of a national productivity increase, so as to enable superannuation contributions in that industry to be effected towards the end of the two year period of implementation. Senator Ryan —On 8 November 1985 (Hansard, page 1849) Senator Vanstone asked me a question, without notice, concerning the time taken to complete post-graduate research degrees at Australian tertiary institutions. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: There has been no study of Australian post-graduate research degrees which is comparable to that undertaken by Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer in the United Kingdom. Related studies in Australia include: a report on the Commonwealth Postgraduate Awards Scheme commissioned in 1980 by the Department of Education; E. Barrett and D. Magin, Postgraduate Research Degrees: How long do they really take? Tertiary Education Research Centre, 1983; a statistical analysis of the duration of University of New South Wales research higher degree enrolments terminating in the period 1979-81. These studies are not however, comparable to the Swinnerton-Dyer inquiry in either scope or coverage. There are no current plans to conduct a wide-ranging examination of Australian postgraduate research degree enrolments. My Department's study of research students holding Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Awards who commenced at universities in 1974 and 1975 found that successful Award holders took longer than non-Award holders to submit a thesis. However the scheme assisted only some 30% of full-time university higher degree research students. The Awards are competitive scholarships, with normally four times as many applicants as Awards available. As the general principle of Commonwealth student assistance schemes is to aim for course completion in minimum time, the completion rate of Award holders is a matter of concern. I am advised that the central selection committee for Research Awards, which advises on the scheme, has been looking at the issues of success and completion rates by Research Award holders at its recent meetings. Arising from this my Department is exploring further avenues of examining scheme outcomes. It is necessary to bear in mind that the Commonwealth's Awards are subject to annual renewal, based on a supervisor's progress report, and that Awards are terminated in circumstances of unsatisfactory progress. In addition, there are time limits on the duration of Award assistance, for example, four years for a student undertaking a Ph.D. program. Senator Walsh —On 17 April 1986 (Hansard, page 1891), Senator Hill asked me, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate, a question without notice concerning the Government's attitude to his Bill titled Horticultural Plant Variety Rights Bill 1985. In response I indicated that the Government would not be supporting his Bill. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: The Government has Professor Lazenby's report on Australia's plant breeding needs under consideration. The report was tabled by the Government and released to the public on 17 April to allow informed public consideration of Professor Lazenby's findings. Professor Lazenby has presented information and has developed conclusions which are relevant to the activities of the State Governments and of several Universities as well as the plant breeding activities of the Commonwealth. It is a very comprehensive and well prepared report. The report has been scheduled for consideration at the next meeting of Australian Agricultural Council in July. The Government will respond to his recommendation that a plant variety rights scheme be introduced in Australia after due consideration of all his conclusions and recommendations. (Question No. 817) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 12 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 Ryan —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Two. (2) Housing Loans Insurance Corporation; Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. (3) None in the respective enabling legislation-but both Corporations are subject to the Ombudsman Act 1976 and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. (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. 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. Neither of the authorities listed in answer to Part (2) of this question is statutorily protected against general liability in tort. (5) None-no decisions of the two Corporations are subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. (6) Not applicable-see answer to (4) above. (Question No. 895) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: (1) Does the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services maintain a register of possible sites for Government computer installations; if so, how many potential new sites have been identified in the Australian Capital Territory. (2) How many of the present Government computer sites throughout Australia suffer periodic water damage, and how many are susceptible to spikes and other electricity supply problems. (3) Has the Department developed standards for temperature control at computer installations. (4) What assistance is the Department able to provide in this regard, and in relation to other problems of fluctuating physical environment at computer sites. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. The Department does not maintain a register of possible sites for Government computer installations. Their provision is in response to client demand. This approach is used because of the differing specifications of each client's computing requirements. Accordingly, no potential new sites have been identified in the Australian Capital Territory. (2) The Department is aware of two Government computer sites in Australia which have suffered periodic water damage and electrical spiking. Electrical spiking can be cured by the connection to the computer of equipment designed to eliminate power peaks and troughs. The purchase of this equipment is the responsibility of the using Department. The Department of Housing and Construction has been notified of the water penetration occurrences and is currently considering remedies. (3) Standards for computer accommodation in Australian Government departments which include standards for temperature and humidity control, have been established by the Department of Housing and Construction and set out in its Technical Information document TI 167AE ``Computer Accommodation''. This document has received a wide degree of acceptance by Government departments and the private sector. Standards have also been produced by the Standards Association of Australia in document AS 2834-1985 ``Computer Accommodation'' issued in December, 1985. This is a comprehensive document covering engineering aspects of the physical environment required for computers. (4) The Department of Housing and Construction is able to provide advice on application of the above standards to specific physical environments. (Question No. 916) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) How many Australians, in total, were identified as employed at the test sites in the Epidemiological Study undertaken by the Commonwealth Department of Health at the instance of the Department of National Development and Energy concerning the British Atomic tests. (2) How many Australians were located as then living and contacted by the survey. (3) How many death certificates of such participants were located. (4) How many of those supplied with the questionnaire and offered the facilities of a medical examination and a possible application to the Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation availed themselves of those offers. (5) What was the increase in medical examinations and applications to the Employees' Compensation Commission following the Government's contacts with the test site workers. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) 15364 (at 15 October 1982). (2) 6275. (3) 1560 (at 17 October 1983). See `Health of atomic test personnel' page 93, Department of Health report tabled on 15 December 1983. (4) In 1981 the then Government had offered all Survey participants who wished it the opportunity to discuss with Commonwealth Medical Officers the health effects of radiation as they applied to themselves. The last question on the questionnaire gave respondents the opportunity to request these discussions. Some 600 respondents to the questionnaires requested counselling. Recipients of questionnaires were however offered neither the facilities of a medical examination nor a possible application to the Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. If requested, advice was given to former employees of the Commonwealth to contact the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation in relation to compensation claims. (5) As stated, no medical examinations were given as a component of the Department of Health study. Increases in applications to the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation can be summarised as follows: In September 1982 (about a month before the health questionnaire was sent out) the total number of applications received, relating to the British Atomic Tests, stood at 95. 1 May 1984 (about 5 months after the health study was tabled in the Senate) the total had risen to 146. (Question No. 917) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) Is there an abundance of wildlife at the former British test sites at the Monte Bellos, Maralinga and Emu. (2) Is the wildlife present at the most heavily contaminated locations. (3) Is the wildlife subject to the effect of any remaining radiation and particulate plutonium in those areas. (4) Had any tests been conducted on the wildlife to determine what adverse effect, if any, had been suffered, prior to the recent Royal Commission; if so, what was the finding on adverse health effects. (5) Did the McClelland Royal Commission conduct any tests on fauna or flora in the relevant areas; if so, what was the nature of those tests and the findings; if not, did the Royal Commission seek and obtain any evidence as to the effects on flora and fauna; if so, what was the nature of that evidence. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. The harsh environment of the Monte Bello Islands and the arid nature of the Emu and Maralinga areas are not conducive to an abundance of wildlife. Native mammalian species of the Monte Bellos were destroyed long before the tests, presumably by introduced rats and feral cats which are still present on the islands. However the waters surrounding the islands contain an abundance of marine life. Wildlife at Maralinga and Emu varies with the season. Most of the small native ground animals which existed in the Maralinga region in the late 1930's have disappeared or subsequently declined in numbers and have been replaced by rabbits. The decline in the numbers of small marsupials is consistent with the general situation in Central Australia. (2) The most heavily contaminated test site is Taranaki at Maralinga. The natural vegetation around Taranaki was destroyed during the testing programme and would presumably not now support the wildlife it may have been capable of supporting previously although no doubt there is transitory movement through the area by Native fauna. There is, however, evidence of rabbits living in the area. (3) The recently established Technical Assessment Group may be expected to assess this issue. (4) Tests had been conducted on wildlife to assess the effects of the UK atomic tests. Many of these tests are referred to on pages 87 to 89 in `Written replies to Questions asked during Estimate Committee E Examination of Proposed Expenditure 1985-86'. In addition the fourth report of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Committee in Annex 4 refers to tests on 4 rabbits and 1 dingo and concluded that there was only very minor uptake of plutonium by small animals. (5) The Royal Commission did not conduct any tests on the effects of the atomic tests on flora and fauna, but it sought evidence on this matter in the context of estimating radiation hazards to Aborigines living a traditional lifestyle at the Maralinga test sites. Some of the evidence suggested that ingestion of bush foods could be more hazardous than inhalation of contaminated dust which had previously been considered the main exposure pathway. Only limited data are available however on Aboriginal diet and on the uptake of plutonium by plant and animals found in and around the contaminated areas, and the Royal Commission concluded that more information was needed. The recently established Technical Assessment Group will examine these issues. (Question No. 918) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) What estimates exist of the numbers of Aboriginal people in the relevant areas during the whole period of the British Atomic Tests. (2) What estimates exist of the numbers and locations of Aboriginal people in British Atomic test areas at the time of the so-called ``Black Mist''. (3) What records are there of the names of the Aboriginal people in (1) and (2) above. (4) Did the McClelland Royal Commission seek to establish the numbers, names and locations of such Aboriginal people; if so, is there a record of those details. (5) Did the McClelland Royal Commission seek to undertake a health survey of all such Aboriginal people now alive or to obtain records of death certificates where possible. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) North West Western Australia (Monte Bello Islands tests 1952, 1956) Broad Aboriginal population figures in the Gascoyne, Pilbara and Murchison regions were estimated as: 1952-4,538 1956-4,896 These figures were extrapolated for the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia by Mr Colin Thackrah from the filed and annual reports of the Western Australian Native Welfare Department. Emu Area Mr W. B. MacDougall, Native Patrol Officer, counted 172 Yankunytjatjara on pastoral properties in the Everard Ranges and Officer Creek areas. This information is contained in the report of his patrol of April 1953. A Security Report dated 25 August 1953 lists the numbers of Aborigines at stations within the northern and north-eastern vicinity of the Emu sites (total 247). Maralinga Area South Australian Department of Mines Map 55/14B with notations of Aboriginal populations in various areas gives an estimate of the Aboriginal population of about 1,600 in the relevant area of South Australia in 1956. The Royal Commission report questions the adequacy of the information on this map. MacDougall estimated in September 1956 that there were 1,180-1,282 Aborigines in locations in the quadrant 360* to 090* centred on Maralinga. In relation to MacDougall's estimates for both Emu and Maralinga, it should be taken into account that the Royal Commission had doubts as to whether MacDougall was in a position to provide accurate figures. (2) In April 1953 Mr MacDougall counted 34 Aborigines at Wallatina where the Black Mist is reported to have occurred. A subsequent security report dated 25 August 1953 stated that there were 30 Aborigines at Wallatina and 6 at Welbourn Hill, where the phenomenon was also reported to have been observed. (3) There are records of the names and locations of Aborigines in (1) and (2) above but they are not exhaustive. Some individuals are not named because of Aboriginal custom. Names of Aboriginals who were at certain locations at certain times are contained in the Royal Commission records, Transcripts of the Royal Commission's proceedings and the Royal Commission's Report itself. (4) There are records collected by the Royal Commission which contain some information, but the Commission did not seek to establish the details. (5) No. (Question No. 1016) Senator Sanders asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 10 April 1986: (1) Did a fire break out on the Bankline (UK) ship the Meadowbank carrying a cargo of Australian yellow cake uranium to Europe in January this year. (2) How many containers of Australian yellow cake were loaded on the Meadowbank in Darwin before that journey. (3) At which ports were those containers offloaded. (4) How many containers were offloaded at each of those ports. (5) What was the destination of each container. (6) Were any of the containers fire damaged. (7) What other damage was caused by the fire. (8) Will the Government halt further shipments of uranium on Bankline vessels until this incident has been investigated, and the safety of the Bankline vessels assessed; if not, what action does the Government intend taking. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) and (4) 34. (3) Rotterdam. (5) The containers were destined for interim storage or delivery to conversion plants in the following countries: Federal Republic of Germany-11 containers France-8 containers United Kingdom-2 containers United States-13 containers (6) No. (7) The only damage was to the bags of cocoa stored in a hold which were the source of the fire. (8) No. I am advised that Bankline vessels comply with international safety requirements and that when uranium yellow cake is carried it is stored in accordance with international standards which have been adopted by Australia. Senator Ryan —On 10 April 1986 (Hansard, page 1563), Senator Macklin asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the following supplementary question without notice: I ask a supplementary question. I reiterate the first part of my question. Have these rules been referred to the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board? The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I have replied to a letter written to me by the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board, New South Wales on this matter and the honourable senator may have a copy of my reply if he wishes.