Tuesday, 19 August 1986 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES SENATE Hansard 1986 FIRST SESSION OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT (FOURTH PERIOD) The Senate, on 13 June 1986, adjourned to 19 August 1986, unless the President fixed an earlier day of meeting. Pursuant to the Resolution of the Senate passed on 13 June 1986, the Senate met on Tuesday, 19 August 1986, at 2 p.m. The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —I have to inform the Senate that on 18 August 1986, I received a letter from Senator Chipp resigning his place as a senator for the State of Victoria. In accordance with section 21 of the Constitution, I notified the Governor of the State of Victoria of a vacancy in the representation of that State caused by the resignation of Senator Chipp. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: 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 Ryan (from 56 citizens), Sibraa (from 10 citizens) and Walsh (from 403 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament becomes aware that the public has no legal right to influence the setting of standards for television programming, that we deplore the new standards which came into force on 1st February, and that we call on Parliament to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, section 16 (2), so that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, when determining television standards, and screening hours, shall consult with the Australian people: because at present the Tribunal is compelled by law to consult only with television stations on these matters, because the new standards are a result of such consultation, and have already been implemented without public discussion, because the new standards are ambiguous, and without definition, because the new standards are composed of modifying terms which circumvent the proscriptions, because the media is only motivated by aspirations of pecuniary superiority, because, in contrast, the public is only motivated by their wish to exercise pastoral care over the nurturing home environment of their children, because we believe that the standards wrongly ascribe extreme importance to ``the storyline`` of a film screened, because we believe that the standards wrongly ascribe total unimportance to the effects of viewing, especially violent films, on the young, the impressionable, the immature, the unstable, or the socially disadvantaged, because we refuse to accept the media-imposed assessment of community standards, and because we wish to impart our demand to be consulted, our demand to have legal status in decision-making, and the right to counsel those whose decisions so deeply affect our homes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest attention. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Crichton-Browne (from 15 citizens) and Harradine (from 12 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 Senators Archer (from 52 citizens) and Watson (from 142 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 32 citizens) and Durack (from 473 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 Senator Durack (from 61 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 is ambiguous and fails to protect rights which are not specifically mentioned in the legislation. 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 161 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 gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Durack (from 658 citizens) and Robertson (from 538 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. The present Australian national flag is not distinctively and uniquely Australian and is confused with other national flags. 2. The people of Australia have never had an opportunity to express their views on an appropriate Australian national flag in a referendum. 3. The present Australian national flag does not properly represent Australia as a sovereign, independent nation. 4. The present Australian national flag falsely proclaims Australia as a colony, homeland, protectorate, dominion or government department of Great Britain. 5. The first condition in the flag competition of 1901 required that the design should show Australia's loyalty to the British Empire. The British Empire no longer exists. 6. A public opinion poll held in 1984 using the Gallup Method revealed that 52% of Australians surveyed wanted a competition for a new design for the Australian flag. 7. There is no inherent link between Australia proclaiming a unique and distinctive flag and the political issue of Australia moving to a republican form of government. 8. The adoption of a truly Australian national flag would serve as a focal point for Australia's bicentennial celebrations in 1988. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: (a) Appoint a Committee of the Parliament with representatives from both Houses and all parties to invite and consider proposals for the design of a new Australian national flag, and (b) Require that Committee to make recommendations on the form of a minimum cost referendum at the time of the next general elections, in which the electors will be given the opportunity to vote for a flag from a selection of at least three designs which will include the present Australian national flag and the winner of the Ausflag-Bulletin-2MMM.FM competition of March 1985. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from two citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; (2) That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 23 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 and the Human Rights 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 possibly 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 Senator Sir John Carrick (from 53 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the Bill of Rights will have the power to override and negate our Common Law within five years of its enactment. 2. Because the Bill of Rights is based on an International Covenant, this will take the control of our country out of the hands of the people and their democratically elected representatives, giving the power to those outside Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray: 1. That the Senate rejects the Australian Bill of Rights and all cognate Bills. 2. That as our representatives, you protect our Australian Heritage and Christian culture and values, both in the Education System, and through the Media. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 746 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 162 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they so wish to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 71 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 276 citizens) and Harradine (from 92 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 allowable 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 Senators Chaney (from 129 citizens), Kilgariff (from 29 citizens) and Messner (from 50 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support `The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 675 citizens). To the Honourable the President, and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament make legislative changes to improve the quality of Television in Australia, and thus improve the nurturing home environment of Australia's children, by implementing the following: (1) Amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, section 6 (2) (a) to read: The Corporation shall comply with- (2) Amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, section 6 (2) (a) (ii) to read: The Standards to be observed in respect to the broadcasting and televising of programmes, and the hours during which programmes may be televised, as approved by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in respect of broadcasting and television services. (3) Amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, section 16 (2) so that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, when determining the Television Standards and screening hours, shall consult the Australian people. (4) Amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 section 118 (1), to read: The Corporation, a licensee, the Special Broadcasting Service, or Cable Licensee, shall not broadcast or televise matter which is blasphemous, indecent or obscene. (5) Draft the coming legislation for the Special Broadcasting Service in a way which ensures compliance with the Television Standards and approved screening hours as set out by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. (6) Draft the eventual Cable Television legislation in a way which ensures compliance with the Television Standards and approved screening hours as set out by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Because to hold that obscenity laws and Television Standards and hours are applicable to some televisors, but inapplicable to others, is to reverse the entire history and reasoning of law. Because to hold that nothing shall be deemed to affect the criminal and civic liability of some stations, while the criminal and civic liability of other stations is upheld by law, is to deny the entire public mandate of accountability to the people whom you, and they, are chartered to serve. Because without these changes, justice is out of reach. by Senator Harradine (from seven citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that your petitioners:- Request that the Hawke Government: Remove the mining veto from the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act by Senator Kilgariff (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Senator Georges (from 89 citizens). To the Honourable the President, and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December, 1984 as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material, (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and the other related tests in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 29 citizens). To the President and Honourable Senators of the Australian Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned residents of Australia, respectfully showeth: We totally reject any moves to cut funding to Australia wide English as a Second Language Program in Schools. We request that the Australian Government restore funding to the 1985 levels in the 1986-87 budget. by Senators Childs (from 2,779 citizens), Robertson (from 41 citizens) and Ryan (from 470 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 26th April 1986, the Soviet Union has not yet adequately explained to its citizens or those of the Soviet-occupied Baltic States, Ukraine and other areas affected by the radiation fall-out the potential short-term and long-term health hazards and the available modes of prevention or reduction of radiation poisoning. Neither have the appropriate medicines for substitution therapies to minimise bodily accumulation of radioactive elements been adequately provided. 2. That the Soviet Union operates many nuclear power stations without the elementary structural safeguards against radioactive spillage regarded as mandatory in the West. Of particular concern is the safety of the largest Soviet nuclear power station at Ignalina in Soviet occupied Lithuania, of similar design to Chernobyl, which already has a record of operational problems. Radioactive spillage at Ignalina would quickly contaminate the whole of Latvia, Lithuania as well as vast areas of Europe. We request that the Australian Government will, 1. Through the World Health Organisation, provide medical aid and broadcast medical information to the victims of radiation exposure following the Chernobyl disaster. 2. Through the United Nations Organisation request the Soviet Union, (a) to close down all nuclear power stations similar to Chernobyl till protective structures are built; (b) permit international inspection of such safety structures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Robertson (from 14 citizens) and Teague (from 80 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: This petition of concern to Australian citizens asks that: 1. The Australian Government exert pressure on Moscow to: (a) Allow the International Atomic Energy Commission full expert investigation of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and its human consequences; (b) Allow Australian Ukrainians to send medical aid to family and friends in Soviet Ukraine; and (c) Allow free communication between Australia and Soviet Ukraine. 2. The Australian Government: (a) Launch a public appeal to help the Chernobyl victims; (b) Support the removal of Russian nuclear weapons out of Ukraine; (c) Support the decolonization of the USSR so that captive nations like Ukraine and the Baltic States are not exploited for Soviet Russian nuclear purposes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Robert Ray (from 34 citizens) and Robertson (from 128 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 cosignatory, 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 Senators Robertson (from 42 citizens) and Sibraa (from 180 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap may be terminated by either Government on one year's notice from 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. And your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) The Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap be terminated one year from 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 Senator Robertson (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: (a) Aboriginal and Islander languages, which numbered approximately 260 when Europeans first arrived, are even more seriously endangered-already 145 have become extinct. (b) English-speaking population expansion and English-speaking mass media expansion threatens the survival of the remaining languages of Australia. (c) Aboriginal languages reflect an ethos that is truly Australian and unless steps are taken to implement language maintenance, this ethos will be lost not only to Aborigines but to non-Aboriginal Australians, and to the world. We humbly pray the Government to: 1. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide $300,000 per annum for a guaranteed period of ten years to enable the Aboriginal community of Australia to establish a co-ordinating body to implement steps to prevent the extinction of the remaining languages, and to introduce programmes which will enable these languages to continue into the future for the sake of all Australians. This body will enable us to maximize existing financial, material, and human resources, and is the least expensive way of implementing urgently needed maintenance programmes. 2. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide finance for the establishment of Regional Language Centres-ten are urgently needed-cost $200,000 each. and we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purposes for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Robert Ray (from 62 citizens) and Reynolds (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal Education systems, the independence of churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: that all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions; that the Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is an unwarranted burden on the small business and rural sectors, which will severely affect their long-term viability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraws the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation without delay. by Senator Short (from 32 citizens). Petitions received. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That Government Business notice of motion No. 1 be postponed till five sitting days after today. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —On behalf of all coalition senators, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate noting that- (a) 13 August 1986 marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the construction of the Berlin Wall and that since that date the City of Berlin has remained divided; and (b) the building of the Berlin Wall is the clearest public manifestation of both the failure and the hopelessness of the Communist political system and the most dramatic admission that Communism and personal liberty and freedom are mutually incompatible, records its sorrow in relation to the 74 persons who have been murdered by the East German regime for their attempts to cross the wall seeking their freedom, and expresses its earnest hope that this monstrous expression of inhumanity will soon be destroyed. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the time for presentation of the Report of the Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 be extended to 25 September 1986. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, contingent on the President proceeding to the placing of business on any day, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines) moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, contingent on any Bill originating in the Senate having been read a first time, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, contingent on any Bill being reported from a Committee of the Whole, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, contingent on the Senate proceeding to the consideration of Government papers pursuant to sessional order, I shall move: That so much of the Sessional Order relating to the consideration of Government Papers be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines) moving a motion relating to the order in which the papers are called on by the President. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, contingent on Senator Walsh, in the course of the proceedings of the Senate, concluding any speech, statement, answer to a question or comment, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines) moving a motion of censure of Senator Walsh. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, contingent on Senator Walsh, in the course of the proceedings of the Senate, concluding any speech, statement, answer to a question or comment, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines) moving a motion that Senator Walsh be censured by the Senate and suspended from the sitting of the Senate for a period of 24 hours. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, contingent on moving of a motion to debate a matter of urgency under standing order 64 and the expiration of the time provided for the discussion of the motion, I shall move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Question on the matter of urgency being put forthwith. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, contingent on the President proceeding to the placing of business on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines) moving a motion to give precedence over other business to the order of the day relating to the Government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Defence Co-operation. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, contingent on the moving of a motion to debate a matter of urgency under standing order 64, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines) moving an amendment to the motion. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) commends the Special Broadcasting Service for the refreshingly innovative way in which it has used its resources to `bring the world back home', and has allowed all Australians to sample the multicultural diversity of their own nation; (b) applauds both the decentralised approach to program contracting fostered by the SBS and the willingness of the SBS to make community access `windows' available; (c) commends specially the SBS for the 2EA and 3EA radio programs which serve ethnic communities in Melbourne and Sydney, and the excellent coverage of world news and current affairs by SBS television at such a low cost; (d) deplores the action of the Federal Government in allowing speculation to mount about the future independence of the SBS; and (e) calls upon the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to announce forthwith that the SBS will be allowed to expand across Australia without any incursion whatsoever on its management style, its programming policies or its Board's independence, and without further threat to its identity during the lifetime of this Parliament. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that section 160zl of the Income Tax Assessment Act applies where: (i) there is a return of capital on shares or a payment in respect of shares of any amount that is not a dividend for the purposes of Part 111a of the Act, and (ii) the shareholder is deemed to have disposed of the shares and then to have immediately re-acquired them; (b) notes that the object of the section is to ensure that a shareholder is not entitled to indexation on the original cost of the shares in the above circumstances thus cheating taxpayers of the Hawke Labor Government's proclaimed benefit of inflation adjustment and (c) calls upon the Government to amend the legislation to give proper effect to shareholders' rights. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move- That the Senate- (a) regrets that the Hawke Government deliberately ignored repeated warnings from the Federal Opposition, since the 1985-86 Budget that the Government's policies would inevitably lead to an economic crisis, as is evidenced by the 30 Notices of Motion listed since last September 1985 by Senator Michael Baume requesting the Government to reverse its big spending inflationary economic policies and excessive reliance on high interest rates that have been destroying our economy; (b) rejects the Government's claim that the present crisis is due to an unexpected fall in Australia's terms of trade that has suddenly reversed what the Government described only three months ago as a buoyant economy that was `on track' and reminds the Government of the Treasury's warning in last year's Budget papers that there would be a `marked deterioration in Australia's terms of trade' which would require the Government to impose strong restraint to wage costs, government spending and inflation, all of which it deliberately refused to do; and (c) condemns the Government for its attempts to mislead the Australian people by seeking to blame the terms of trade rather than its own disastrous actions that have worsened an economic problem into a deep economic crisis, the responsibility for which totally lies with the Hawke Government. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, 15 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' pensions, made under the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 and presented to the Senate on 2 June 1986, be disallowed. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the House of Assembly (Election) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in the Australian Capital Territory Regulations 1986 No. 10 and made under the House of Assembly Ordinance 1936, be disallowed. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that- (a) the language used in section 160zzs of the Income Tax Assessment Act has been the subject of considerable public concern; (b) notwithstanding the undertaking of the First Assistant Commissioner of Taxation (Mr Nolan) that the section would be administered in a reasonable way, the law remains unclear and, as such, represents bad law calls upon the Hawke Labor Government to amend the legislation to remove uncertainty that any change in the membership of companies or unit trusts of more than 50 per cent would render the assets held by those entities subject to capital gains tax. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Siddons was elected Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats in a national ballot of members which concluded on Friday, 15 August 1986. In that same ballot members saw fit to elect me as the Party Leader of the Australian Democrats. I pay the highest possible tribute to Senator Chipp, who, as Leader of the Party, entered the Senate in 1978 and who has now retired after 25 years in Australian political life. Senator Chipp worked untiringly in Parliament and in the community for the welfare of all Australians. His contribution to Australian politics, to the work of the Senate, and before that in another place, has been a unique and significant achievement, and I believe it will be remembered as such. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I congratulate Senator Haines on her election as Leader of the Australian Democrats and Senator Siddons on his election as Deputy Leader. We had the opportunity to say something about Senator Chipp on a previous occasion and I merely reiterate what I said then and confirm a considerable degree of agreement with what Senator Haines said on that matter. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I, too, congratulate Senators Haines and Siddons for the positions they now occupy. I note in passing that Mr Wran knew when to leave, and I can only assume that in this case a departing Chipp means a sinking ship. In any event, I wish them well for the remainder of their terms in this place. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —by leave-I congratulate Senator Haines and Senator Siddons on attaining positions of leadership in the Australian Democrats and I look forward to working in co-operation with the Australian Democrats, especially on nuclear matters. The PRESIDENT —I draw attention to the presence in the President's Gallery of a delegation from the Canadian Parliament, including among its members the Speaker of the Senate, Speaker Charbonneau, and the Speaker of the House of Commons, Speaker Bosley. I welcome all the members of the delegation to Australia, and to Canberra in particular, and trust that they will enjoy the rest of their visit. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I propose to invite the two Presiding Officers to take a seat on the floor of the Senate. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Speakers Charbonneau and Bosley were thereupon seated accordingly. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind him of three matters: Firstly, the Budget Statement No. 1 last year, which predicted `a marked deterioration in the terms of trade'; secondly, the June Treasury Round-up, which talked about terms of trade having fluctuated around a downward trend for the last 15 years; and lastly, the Treasurer's statement only three months ago that the Australian economy was `entirely robust' and `entirely healthy'. I ask the Minister: Why has the Government persistently misled the Australian people about the state of and prospects for the Australian economy? Senator BUTTON —The Government has not been misleading the Australian people about the state of the economy. It is very easy for Senator Chaney to take three statements out of context and put them together in the way in which he has done. Let me be quite clear about this: It is quite true that the balance of the current account has been deteriorating in this country for some time. All the structural problems which have led to that deterioration have been the product of 30 years of conservative government in this country. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —Opposition senators can shout about those things now, but it is a fact which is widely recognised by intelligent commentators. Let me just remind honourable senators of a few things. There are people on the Opposition benches now-for God's sake, the alternative government of Australia, so called-who in 1980 and 1981 were talking up a phoney resources boom in Australia, were talking up a boom which was to lead to 500,000 jobs in this country and were ignoring the manufacturing sector about which they now complain. That is just part of the symbolism of what happened over the seven years of the last conservative Government and over the 23 years of the conservative Government before that. Everybody, from the National Farmers Federation and elsewhere, who comes to the Opposition and complains now says: `Where did we go wrong in all that period? They say: `We were misled by the National Country Party'-by Senator Boswell over here, the noisiest interjector in the place. Those are some of the structural and intellectual facts which relate to the current situation with which this country is confronted. When the Australian Labor Party came into government in 1983 we had had seven years of conservative government, in the last four of which wage outcomes had been precisely double what they have been since this Government came to power, the size of the deficit had been significant in every year and inflation rates had been higher than they have been since this Government came to power. All those structural things were built in when this Government came to power in 1983. Senator Puplick —Who was the president of the union movement then? Who was in charge of the ACTU at the time? Senator BUTTON —Senator Puplick, the mouse that roared! Who was chief trade unionist at the time? So Senator Puplick blames it all on him, does he, not on the Government of the time? He must have been a very good trade union official to deal with such a competent government as honourable senators opposite say it was. Let us try to get away from some of these childish alibis. This Government is addressing those problems of the current account deficit. I have said, and have been saying it for two or three years now, that that problem will not be turned around overnight. It took 25 years to create under conservative governments and we will not turn it around overnight. I said that publicly last year. Many people on the Opposition side of the House came to me and said: `That is an interesting idea. That is probably right'. We are in this for the medium to long haul. What the people of this country need is a government with the courage to tackle some of the problems that honourable senators opposite ran away from over a number of years. We will do that, and the Opposition will find out about it tonight. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I must say that the Minister moved on to safer ground when he quoted himself rather than Mr Keating. I ask: Does he agree that Mr Keating was entitled to say, and was speaking truthfully when he said, in May of this year in Parliament, `So what we have is an entirely healthy economy', and when on the same day he said: `Let me make the point that the Australian economy has been entirely robust'? How does he square that with his recent diatribe? Senator BUTTON —Quite simply. It has to be done simply for the benefit of the Opposition; that is why I said that. What Mr Keating was talking about in May 1983 was the health of the Australian-- Senator Chaney —In 1986, three months ago. Senator BUTTON —It could not have been 1983, no; I agree with that. We had just taken over from honourable senators opposite then. In May 1986 what Mr Keating was talking about was the basic strength of the Australian domestic economy, and what he said was right. If the Opposition wants a simple lesson in economics we will give it one in the next week or two. If honourable senators look at the decline in commodity prices in the last year-- Senator Chaney —It has been going on for 15 years. Senator BUTTON —No, Senator. The structural problems have been going on for 15 years, exacerbated by that disastrous period of Fraser Government. Let me say this: What he said about the Australian domestic economy was right. He was probably making a comparison with the situation three years before when the domestic economy was in an abysmal mess in spite of good prices for commodities throughout the world. Senator COOK —Mr President-- Senator MacGibbon —Oh, the genius! Senator COOK —The honourable senator should not worry, he will get his. Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry seen the report in yesterday's Australian citing the Western Australian Liberal Party member of the Legislative Assembly for Murchison-Eyre-one of Senator Chaney's colleagues-Mr Ross Lightfoot as urging the United States Administration to push through subsidised wheat sales to the Soviet Union and China as a means of undermining the Australian economy and Government? If so, can the Minister comment on the implications of this action for Australia's negotiating strategy on this matter in Washington? Senator WALSH —I saw the report to which Senator Cook referred in the Australian. I also saw it in a number of other newspapers today. Since I originally read the article only in the Australian I had some doubts as to its accuracy but as the same story has been repeated in a number of other more reputable and reliable newspapers its accuracy is now established beyond all doubt. I have also been told by a journalist that he possesses a copy of the letter which Mr Lightfoot wrote. The reason why I found the report unbelievable, apart from first seeing it published in that newspaper, is that I could not believe that even a member of the Western Australian Liberal Party would seek publicly to sabotage the Australian economy for no more noble a motive than to assist that rat-bag bunch in the Opposition to get back into government. Mr Lightfoot spelt it right out in the article. He is a Western Australian Liberal Party member of parliament. He urged George Shultz and the United States Administration to continue to subsidise sales of wheat and sugar to the Soviet Union and China respectively. He urged the Reagan Administration to continue to foot the bill for the atrocities being committed in Afghanistan and thus to sabotage the Australian economy just so a bunch of scungy no-hopers, represented by Mr Lightfoot, would have a better chance of getting back into government. There used to be under the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia, of which many members of the Liberal Party were admirers, a criminal offence called economic treason. If there were such a criminal offence in Australia Mr Lightfoot would, without doubt, be behind bars. Mr Lightfoot wants to make Australians suffer for no more noble a motive than to assist a discredited Opposition to get back into government on the economic misfortunes to which the United States Administration's present policy is contributing. Liberal members will stop at nothing to satisfy their power lust. Most appalling of all, I have yet to hear Mr Lightfoot being repudiated or disowned by any other member of the Liberal Party. Surely, at the very least, somebody who indulges in economic sabotage to the extent that Mr Lightfoot has-call it economic treason if you like-should be rebuked and repudiated by the members of his own party. I would go further and say that the minimum penalty which the Liberal Party ought to impose on Mr Lightfoot, if it wants to retain any credibility at all in Australian politics, is to expel him forthwith. Finally, I wonder what the National Party thinks about this matter. It purports to represent the interests of Australian farmers. It is in coalition with the Liberal Party, which contains Mr Lightfoot, who has attempted to further undermine the prices being received for Australian agricultural commodities. Some people-and I do not count myself in this group-might offer excuses for the Liberal Party not repudiating or expelling one of its own, but where is that great champion of the Australian farmer, Ian Sinclair? What does he have to say about Mr Lightfoot deliberately, and in a premeditated way, attempting to further undermine the prices being received by Australian farmers and the income being received by this country? I have noted the silence on the other side. Not one member of the Liberal Opposition has given any indication that he has repudiated Mr Lightfoot. Not one member of the National Party has given any indication that he or she has repudiated Mr Lightfoot. The Western Australian Liberal Party leader, Mr Bill Hassell, to the best of my knowledge, has still said and done nothing. Of course, that greatest coward of them all, Mr John Howard, has remained mute. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will withdraw that last remark. Senator WALSH —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator COLLARD —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the Prime Minister's weekend reference to Australia now facing a war-like situation and the long term deterioration in this country's terms of trade as revealed in last year's Budget papers, particularly since, as Senator Chaney reminded us, it was only recently that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were extolling the virtues of our strong and growing economy. Does the Minister acknowledge that a three-fold increase in our overseas debt can hardly be seen as effectively addressing the problem of our current deficit, as he has just indicated the Government was doing? Does he acknowledge that his Government's failure to take a stronger line with the unions on wages and work practices, its support for the productivity wages rise, its high interest rate policy and its anti-investment tax measures are major reasons for the mess in which Australia now finds itself? Senator BUTTON —I did not get all the details of that question, but I do not think that matters. This refrain which stems from the Opposition about these various issues is so boringly familiar. In the last period of this Parliament we spent all the time talking about wage outcomes and results in this country. Let me remind the Senate of a few facts about wages in terms of the comparative questions to which Senator Collard is addressing his mind. I remind you, Mr President, that in the past three years, since this Government came to power, the wage outcomes have been in the order of 7 or 6 per cent a year, compared with previous years' wage outcomes in this country of 14, 15 or 16 per cent. That has been steadily so for three years. Senator Collard —Could we afford it? Senator BUTTON —Yes-can we afford it? A lot of the members of the Opposition give much vaunted attention to the situation in the United Kingdom. What a brilliant situation that is. John Howard is a sort of Margaret Thatcher in drag in Australia, trying to emulate that draconian Government in the United Kingdom. There is a lot of talk about all that. Look at the wage outcomes by comparison in the United Kingdom in the past three years-plus 11 1/2 per cent in real wage growth. It is minus 3 per cent in Australia. True, its inflation rate is coming down. It has not had a devaluation to the extent that we have had-nothing like it. It has had enormous unemployment accompanying those sorts of wage outcomes. Senator Collard had a number of bits in his question which are all fairly familiar-wages, work practices, and so on. I guess this must be the first government in the history of this country that has seriously addressed the question of work practices in Australian industry. Senator Boswell —What about the redundancy practices? The PRESIDENT —Order! I call Senator Boswell to order. I ask honourable senators to bear in mind that so far there have been only three questions and three answers. A number of answers have been lengthened by interjections. I ask the Senate to realise that, it being the first day of session, a number of honourable senators wish to ask questions. I call Senator Button. Senator BUTTON —Thank you, Mr President. Senator Boswell queried the expression `work practices'. Observing his conduct here in the Senate I do not think he would know what a work practice is. He spends half his time dozing. However, let me say that this is the first government in the history of this country that has addressed the question of work practices in Australian industry. It is not possible to turn those things around over night, but this Government will turn them around. In Australia the question is not about wage rates. That is not the real issue, except for the devaluation and inflationary effects of that. Apart from those effects, the issue of long term improvements in this economy does not concern wage rates relative to those of other countries. The issue is about the method of doing work in Australia, about management and about productivity. That is what it is about. Those are the questions which this Government, for the first time in Australian history, has been addressing. I inform Senator Collard that turning those things around will be difficult. Under Senator Collard's present leader there would be no hope of turning around any of those things. The people of this country would walk away from his party in droves if it tried the sorts of things it proposes and accompanied them with the other silly, ratbag collection of policies which have been advanced in the community. The Government's policies require time, and they are working. If the honourable senator wants it put in simple, practical terms, I ask him to look at the man days lost in the steel industry under his Government. Some 43,000 man days a year were lost. What was it last year? Last year 4,000 man days were lost. Industrial disputation in this country now is 40 per cent of what it was under his Government. They are the basic sorts of things that honourable senators opposite have to face up to. They have to think very hard about what they can do, because their sitting here and sniping about wages will not bring about a solution to these problems. Senator Collard can go through again all the things that he mentioned, but I would give him much the same sort of answer. However, I defer to the President's desire to be brief. Senator BOLKUS —I ask the Minister for Finance whether he has seen the transcript of a speech made by the current Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Howard, to the annual convention of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party on Friday, 8 August. If so, can the Minister provide the Senate and the Australian people with a cost assessment of undertakings that the Leader of the Opposition made in that speech, together with other undertakings recently made by the Leader and other members of the coalition front bench? The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call the Minister for Finance I draw the Minister's attention to my earlier statement asking Ministers to keep their answers as short as possible. Senator WALSH —I have seen the transcript of that speech. I think that speech entitles Mr Howard to nomination as newspeaker of the year. Among other things-I think this is the most spectacular line in the speech-he said: The Australian people do not want new spending commitments from us. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The Minister has accused the Leader of the Opposition of lying. I think that is out of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I did not hear that. There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —That was the most spectacular line. I said that the Leader of the Opposition was entitled to be nominated for newspeaker of the year. Perhaps I should have said newspeaker of the decade. He said: The Australian people do not want new spending commitments from us. The Australian people already have new spending commitments from the Opposition-$1,500m from the Liberal Party plus another $500m from the National Party, added on by its 14-point program for agricultural reconstruction. I presume that was the grave-digger's answer, or the undertaker's answer, to Mr Lightfoot's attempts to bury Australian agriculture-a 14-point rescue package costing the taxpayers $500m to try to repair some of the damage which people like Mr Lightfoot would do to Australian agriculture and which the Liberal Party, by implication, supports. We have not yet had one member of the Liberal Party in this House-nor anywhere else to my knowledge-who has repudiated what Mr Lightfoot has done. On the outlay side, those commitments that were given then, plus all the other commitments, would add $2 billion to the deficit. Senator Cook —How much? Senator WALSH —Two billion dollars-an extra $2 billion worth of expenditure promises. I should reinforce that by saying that at the Country Liberal Party Conference at Alice Springs a couple of weeks ago the Leader of the National Party, Mr Sinclair, repeated the Opposition's commitment to construct the Darwin to Alice Springs railway. It would appear that when the National Party gets in front of its own redneck cheer squad it just cannot help itself; it does things that are politically stupid as well as economically stupid. If one looks at the receipts side of the Budget-there is a range of estimates here, depending upon how one wishes to interpret a particular promise the Opposition has given-receipts would fall by between $3 billion and $5 billion. In other words, if Mr Howard were put in the position of implementing his policies, they would add between $5 billion and $7 billion to the Budget deficit. That would leave us with a Budget deficit well above $10 billion, which is even bigger than the deficit he left in the bag for this Government to pick up when he was kicked out of office. Senator HAINES —I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security by reminding him of the Prime Minister's statements that all sectors of the community must share equally in the sacrifices demanded in these times of stringency. Does the Minister believe that a reduced deficit achieved by cuts to welfare spending in circumstances where the Government has not yet achieved its 1983 election promise to raise pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings is a more socially equitable arrangement than, for example, reducing the deficit by closing off taxation rip-offs, such as the continued use by wealthy businessmen of taxpayer-subsidised loans to finance their essentially non-productive takeovers and share raids? Senator GRIMES —In Question Time today obviously I am not going to anticipate anything that is contained in the Budget. With the Prime Minister and other members on this side, I believe that any burden that has to be borne by the community should be borne equitably. I believe we have treated and will continue to treat pensions so that we get closer to that aim of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. I do not believe that anything we do now will stop us from getting closer to that aim. I must say very gently and very kindly to the new Leader of the Australian Democrats that for her to accuse this Government of a way in which it is more concerned about tax dodgers than it is about those people who are recipients of welfare expenditure comes very strangely from the leader of a party the majority of whose members voted against legislation in this Parliament that would have recovered some $700m in tax forgone, which we could have used to assist the people about whom she claims to be concerned. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. No doubt the Minister will have seen numerous reports that the Liberal Party under the leadership of Mr Howard has promised to abolish fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax, tax on lump sum superannuation payouts, and the assets test. Can the Minister give the Senate an indication of the cost of those measures? Do these promises represent what could be called financial irresponsibility in the present economic circumstances? Senator WALSH —The answer to the last part of the question is unequivocally yes, it does represent financial irresponsibility. Anybody familiar with the record in government of the present Leader of the Opposition as the key economic Minister in the Fraser Government-the Treasurer-would not expect anything but financial irresponsibility from him. His desperate last Budget, which had absolutely no economic strategy, contained a political strategy aimed at the re-election of the Fraser Government and nothing else-a strategy which, let it be noted for the record, failed. That Budget had no economic strategy. As I said earlier, it left this Government holding the bag with a $10 billion Budget deficit, the foundations for which were laid by Mr Howard in his last year of irresponsibility as Treasurer in the late and unlamented last coalition Government. To give precise answers as to the revenue costs of the promises which the Opposition Leader has made would require the incorporation of some of the parameters, assumptions and economic forecasts which are contained in the Budget which will be delivered tonight. I have already gone on the public record, some time ago, saying that the promises regarding specific measures which Mr Howard made in Adelaide at the Liberal Party conference would cost the revenue more than $1 billion. That, of course, is only a small component of the package of fiscal irresponsibility which Mr Howard is putting to the country. The other promises on taxation which he has made would cost the revenue an additional $2 billion to $4 billion, depending on how one liked to interpret it-without even taking into account the $2 billion the Opposition collectively has promised to add to expenditure. There can be only one or two possible outcomes from that sort of expenditure and those sorts of tax policies were they to be implemented. Either the deficit would blow out in excess of $10 billion, that is, an even higher deficit than we inherited from Mr Howard the last time he was dumped from office, or, alternatively, the taxation promises would make it absolutely impossible for the present Opposition, if in government, to deliver lower marginal tax rates. Again, this is absolutely consistent with Mr Howard's record in government. He was Treasurer for five years. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is now clearly debating the answer. I ask him to bring his answer to a conclusion. Senator WALSH —I conclude by saying that Mr Howard had five years as Treasurer to reduce marginal tax rates and he did not do it. He will not do it if he gets the opportunity again. Indeed, he could not do it, given all the other irresponsible promises he has made to which Senator Foreman has referred. Senator DURACK —I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: Will he inform the Senate whether Mr Justice Murphy intends to continue sitting as a member of the High Court of Australia and, if so, for how long? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is my understanding that he does not intend to continue sitting, that the condition of his health makes that impossible. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Recent changes to the pharmaceutical benefits schedule having engendered some adverse comment, can the Minister please describe the process and the rationale involved in revision of the schedule? Senator GRIMES —Decisions about additions to and deletions from the pharmaceutical benefits schedule are made on the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. That Committee considers the schedule and makes decisions and recommendations to the Minister, who has no ability to remove from or add items to the list without the Committee's recommendation. As Senator Giles has said, recently some 46 items or formulations were removed. They were items such as low dose analgesics, some aspirins and paracetamols, some expectorants, some cough suppressants and vitamins and some antihistamines. Almost all of these items are available across the counter without prescription. In fact, many of them are available in supermarkets in the community. There has been some adverse comment. I remind honourable senators that over the years when anything was removed from the list-I remember various laxatives and other items being removed from the list-there was some adverse comment, usually from some patients who had been on those items for a long time. However, on this occasion much of the adverse comment was engendered by officials of the Australian Medical Association, particularly in Queensland but I understand also in Tasmania, who took it upon themselves to criticise the decisions of the Government and this Committee. I remind honourable senators that the Committee is made up of nine people who are pharmacists, pharmacologists or doctors. Six of those nine people are nominees of the Australian Medical Association and they make their decisions on the basis of medical activities. In this case they made their decisions because the drugs were of little therapeutic value. As a side line to this there are obviously financial implications of the decision they have made. The financial implications are these: These substances are available, as I have said, across the counter or in supermarkets from about $2; some of them cost up to $3. To provide them under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, say in New South Wales, costs a Medicare consultation, which is $13.30, the cost of the drug, which is usually about $1.60-in the case, say, of paracetamol $1.66-and there is a dispensing fee of $2.40. So the taxpayer is expected to pay some $17 or $18 for a substance which is available across the counter or in the supermarket and which is of little or no therapeutic value at all. Other aspirins, aspirins that are used for the treatment of rheumatism, et cetera, stay on the list. Medical practitioners who are speaking for the AMA and who have made this adverse comment, I am sorry to say, are acting in an irresponsible way medically and are clearly acting purely to try to embarrass the Government. They are acting in a party political way. They do not deserve their positions. The members of the medical profession in this country who have elected those people do not deserve to have them representing them. They are dishonest, they are acting in a party political way and they are causing distress to patients and pensioners in this country unnecessarily. They are a disgrace to the profession; they are even a disgrace as politicians. Senator WALTERS —I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to recent comments by the Attorney about the Government's intention with regard to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. Does the Government intend to proceed with the legislation in the Budget session or indeed in the life of this Parliament? If not, does this mean that the Australian people have heard the last of this unnecessary and divisive Bill of Rights or does the Government propose to achieve its aims in some other way? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is with deep regret that I advise the Senate that the Government does not propose to proceed with the Bill and will withdraw it from the Senate at the first appropriate opportunity. This is not due to any lack of commitment on the part of the Government to the principles underlying the Bill. The Bill is nothing more, as we have said for many years, than an attempt to better protect the civil and political rights of all Australians against interference by governments. The Bill has been the subject of a quite disgraceful campaign of deliberate misrepresentation and deception on the part of the Opposition. That campaign has led to unfounded, but widespread, concern in the community about the terms of the Bill. It is no matter of pride to this nation that on this occasion at least it would appear that the troglodytes, the neanderthals, the drones and the thugs have had their way. The reality is, however, that this Government must take account of the very great practical problems which have been caused by the Senate's deliberate obstruction of the Bill. The Bill has been before the Parliament since 9 October last year. During the autumn sittings, 36 hours of debate on this Bill and associated legislation-which is, I believe, a record since federation- has occurred, in the Senate leading to quite unacceptably minuscule progress on the Bill. This was due, it must be said, to deliberate filibustering tactics on the part of the Opposition, not least the most grotesque filibusterer of them all, the asker of this question. For instance, the list of the proposed amendments to the Bill, which was circulated prior to the debate, contained no proposal to amend articles 3, 4 or 5 of the Bill, yet the so-called debate on those articles occupied more than 50 pages of Hansard. No amendment was moved or anticipated in respect of those articles. Article 5 was not even voted on. I must say that the Australian Democrats have not assisted this process by their unwillingness to keep the debate within reasonable bounds. Although some of them had indicated their support for this Bill, that support has not, I regret to say, been reflected in the kind of procedural support which was obviously necessary if this Bill was to get its passage through this House. It is more in sorrow than in anger that I report that the Democrats, as has so often been the case, simply have not put their money where their mouths are in regard to their commitment to this Bill. For all those reasons, not least of which are some additional financial stringency considerations which we will hear more about tonight, the Government has decided, as I have said, to withdraw the legislation and not proceed with it in this Parliament. The substance of the Bill of Rights concept and the particular terms of the Bill will, as the Attorney-General has foreshadowed, however, be referred to the Constitutional Commission in order that this highly valuable concept can be further explored in that environment. I also mention that the proposed Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which was to replace the Human Rights Commission-scheduled to meet its demise as a result of a sunset clause in the present legislation-will proceed, albeit with a slightly different title to reflect the absence of a Bill of Rights jurisdiction. It will be moved that the Bill now before the Parliament have its title altered to that simply of Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, to reflect the fact that it will be concerned essentially with proceedings under the Sex Discrimination Act and the Racial Discrimination Act, but it will also retain its jurisdiction to investigate complaints and make reports in relation to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the other matters set out in the Bill, which have attracted, of course, as they should, a degree of community support. I hope that that sufficiently answers the question and means that at least we will not be subjected to the further chirrupings of Senator Walters on this issue-which will be a blessed and merciful release for us all-and also that some of those petitioners will cease getting writers' cramp in the future. Senator McINTOSH —Is the Minister for Education aware of concerns felt by the Western Australian College of Advanced Education about proposed changes in tertiary education in Western Australia-namely, a new tertiary education institution at Yanchep, and the renaming of the Western Australian Institute of Technology as a university of technology? If so, what is the Government's view of these proposals and the concerns expressed by the College of Advanced Education? Senator RYAN —I am very well aware of the concerns of staff and students at the Western Australian College of Advanced Education about the issues mentioned in Senator McIntosh's question and, indeed, of staff and students of a number of other higher education institutions in that State. Two weeks ago I spent some time in Perth, where I had the opportunity to explain to representatives of all the higher education institutions and student organisations and staff associations, the Commonwealth's views on the range of changes which are being proposed-or, at least, floated-by the Western Australian Government at this stage. Fundamentally, without taking up too much of the time of the Senate, our position is this: We have a national responsibility for proper planning of the development of higher education throughout Australia-in Western Australia and all other States and Territories. We need to ensure that developments will as far as possible give equal opportunity of access to higher education to Australians in all parts of the country. Therefore, when changes of direction or new or amalgamated institutions are proposed at State level, discussions with the Commonwealth are necessary so that those proposals can be assessed in terms of what they will offer-such as improved educational standards and access-and in terms of the fair and balanced development of the rest of Australia. The Western Australian Government's proposal is to change the Institute's name to technical university. That proposal has not been agreed to by us. There is no need to make that name change. WAIT, which is an institute of technology, has a good reputation which goes beyond Australia. It has some off-shore operations-for example, its external studies program in Singapore. In the view of the Commonwealth and many of the States, WAIT's development is in no way hampered by the fact that it is an institute of technology. It seems that some people associated with that institute believe that, by securing the Western Australian Government's agreement to a name change, the institution will automatically be entitled to a higher level of Commonwealth funding. That is simply not the case. Funds for pure research are scarce, as all honourable senators know. Our commitments to existing universities are already stretched to the limit. It is simply not possible and, I suggest, not fair for one institution to decide that it will queue jump with respect to research funds by persuading its State government to change that institution's name. So we are not interested in that proposal, and I have made that clear to the Western Australian authorities. The Western Australian Institute of Technology is working on a proposal to incorporate the land at Yanchep as an additional campus. It may be possible that such an incorporation could go ahead in a way that meets our guidelines, which are to protect the standards of public institutions, the access of Australians to those institutions on a merit basis and the use of public funds made available for public purposes. Should a proposal that meets all those criteria come forward, the Commonwealth would be sympathetic to it. But if a proposal did not meet those criteria, we would not agree to it. At this stage I am waiting on a proposal from WAIT with regard to the Yanchep campus. I will inform Senator McIntosh and all interested parties of the Commonwealth's response when that proposal is to hand. Senator MESSNER —Does the Minister representing the Treasurer agree with Premier Burke of Western Australia that the fringe benefits tax has gone awry and that there is an urgent need for reassessment of both the impact of the tax and its method of collection? Does he think that Premier Unsworth is correct in describing the tax as an administrative nightmare? In view of those comments, opposition by other Labor leaders and objections raised in Caucus yesterday by Mr Ron Edwards, MP, does the Government intend making any changes aimed at reducing the impact of the tax or simplifying its administration? Senator WALSH —The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and anyone else with any common sense would say that, if an equally effective but easier and less expensive method of administering any scheme were presented, of course a government would be stupid not to accept that advice. Whether it would be cheaper, easier and so on would of course be a matter of judgment. The only people I can think of who would be likely to reject that proposition are members of the Opposition. As to the comments of Premier Burke and Premier Unsworth, Premier Unsworth has particular problems which are domestic rather than national and there are precedents for politicians throwing a smoke-screen around themselves. As for Premier Burke, I will be telling him something of what I think of his comments when he returns to Western Australia. Essentially, the answer to Senator Messner's questions is no. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether it is correct that the United States Administration wants to push ahead with the resumption of chemical weapons production. I also note with alarm reports today which speak approvingly about biological weapons. What action has the Australian Government taken on behalf of Australians to discourage the United States from its course? If no action has yet been taken, will the Government make clear to its contacts in high places in the United States our abhorrence of the development of chemical and biological weapons? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware that the defence budget for fiscal year 1987 submitted by President Reagan to Congress does include a request for funds to modernise the United States of America's chemical weapons arsenal, and that does cause us some concern. The United States unilaterally ceased production of chemical weapons in 1969. The United Kingdom destroyed its stockpiles of chemical weapons at around the same time. The Government is not aware of any matching response by the Soviet Union. The United States Administration has justified its request for its chemical weapons modernisation program in terms of the need to reduce the Soviet Union's incentive to use chemical weapons against the United States or its allies by rebuilding and maintaining an adequate United States chemical warfare capability. It also believes that modernisation would provide an inducement for the Soviet Union to conclude a comprehensive chemical weapons convention. The Australian Government's position on chemical weapons is well known. We support the early conclusion of a comprehensive convention that would ban the production, stockpiling and use of all chemical weapons. Such a convention would involve the destruction of all existing stockpiles of chemical weapons and the dismantling of chemical weapons production facilities. It would, therefore, remove the need for any country or security alliance to acquire or modernise its chemical weapons capacity in order to deter a potential attack with chemical weapons. I interpolate that it is a rather strange prospect that one needs to build up one's stock of chemical weapons in order to create the incentive for a chemical weapons convention to then occur, but such is the alarming reasoning with which we are in fact confronted in the real world of international deterrence. Australia's delegation to the Conference on Disarmament is playing a significant role in the negotiations for this convention which have, it must be said, made encouraging progress so far this year. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Since coming to power the Hawke Government has abolished exchange controls, loosened regulations on foreign investment in property and other areas of investment, and generally deregulated the economy to the advantage of foreign interests, while harming ordinary Australians. Given the lack of concern this Government has shown for the economic sovereignty of this country, can the Minister give an assurance that the Foreign Investment Review Board will not be further weakened or scrapped completely? Senator WALSH —I must say that I am puzzled by this question because there seems to be a good deal of confusion in the ranks of the Australian Democrats as to what they are in favour of and what they are not in favour of. On the one hand I have noted that they have been repeatedly critical of overseas debt incurred by a number of people to acquire equity in Australian assets. Indeed, as I recall it, they have been extremely critical of that. Therefore, I expected that they would have been in favour of foreigners taking equity rather than debt interests in Australian activities. The only conclusion I can reasonably draw from Senator Siddons's question is that he is opposed to foreign equity in businesses operating in Australia. It seems to me that the Democrats are speaking with at least two voices on this question. I suggest to the Democrats that they should have some internal discussions to see whether they are for or against foreigners having financial interests-that is, making loans to Australian enterprises or Australians-or whether they are in favour of equity. Perhaps they are against both. I suppose they could be against both if they were starting from scratch 150 or nearly 200 years ago; they could be against the practice of Australians either surrendering equity in Australian enterprises or having debts abroad. The price of that would be, of course, a very much slower rate of economic growth and economic development. I am willing to concede that there are arguments to be put both for and against debt or equity. I want to close by making this observation: Whilst a higher proportion of equity may-I do not think it necessarily follows-give Australians more effective control over Australian enterprises, the replacement of equity by debt exposes Australia to much higher risks. Indeed that is the experience the country is going through right now. Ever since the talk of a resources boom-a boom which did not happen-of the early 1980s, Australia has maintained a very high current account deficit. The record current account deficit was in Mr Howard's second last year as Treasurer, when it equalled 6 per cent of gross domestic product. A lot of that was in the form of loans raised abroad to directly fund either resource development projects or the infrastructure for them. Now that those industries are less profitable than was anticipated at that time, we as a nation are stuck with the interest payments on that debt, whereas if there had been a higher proportion of foreign equity the foreigners would have had to accept a higher share of the cost by way of lower profits and lower dividends. This has happened to Australia before. We were in a similar situation in the 1920s due to reckless borrowings, mostly by coalition governments. We had a very high level of foreign debt as we went into the 1930s, with the difference then being that most of that debt was government debt. In short, if a nation is to be a capital importer, as Australia traditionally has been, the more it substitutes borrowings overseas and debt for equity the more exposed it will be in the prices for its commodities to adverse movements of the type which have occurred in the last 12 or 18 months. Senator SIDDONS —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I have been given a rather convoluted lecture on capital versus debt financing. I direct the Minister to the very simple question I asked, which he has not yet answered. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Foreign Investment Review Board will not be further weakened or scrapped completely? Senator WALSH —I understand that the Treasurer has made a statement on that. I will confess that sometimes when I have been present when decisions have been made I find it a bit difficult to remember whether they have been announced publicly. I believe the Treasurer has made a statement of changes to the FIRB. If he has not done so I will seek a definitive statement from him in the near future. I have no reason to believe that the policy of the Treasurer which I believe has already been announced will be changed. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has there been any particular pattern in the unemployment rates of the various Australian States in recent years? Have any particular States tended to have consistently high unemployment rates? If so, what reasons can the Minister offer for the existence of that pattern? Senator WALSH —For a very long time indeed there has been a pattern in unemployment rates by States. Queensland and Tasmania have consistently had the highest unemployment rates. Indeed, not since April 1984 has any State other than Queensland or Tasmania had the highest unemployment rate. In other words, for two and a half years either Queensland or Tasmania has had the highest unemployment rate of any State. At the moment Queensland is leading the field. It has the worst unemployment rate in the country and has had for the last four consecutive months. Last month, Queensland's unemployment rate soared to 9.6 per cent. I do not know whether that is ominous, but except for having a percentage sign instead of being in billions of dollars, that is the same figure as that of the deficit which Mr Howard left this Government. For six of the last 12 months Queensland has had the highest unemployment rate of any State. To put the figures in another context, more people in Queensland are receiving the unemployment benefit than in Victoria in spite of the fact that Victoria has a 65 per cent higher population-or, more accurately, higher labour force-than does Queensland. Finally, it ought to be noted that this phenomenon in Queensland of consistently having the highest unemployment rate of any State is not related to what some Queenslanders would call the southern dole bludger syndrome because Queensland has suffered a net loss of about 5,200 people in the key 20 to 34-year-old job seeker group in the last 12 months' issued figures. As to what one attributes the fact that Queensland and Tasmania consistently have the highest unemployment rates, the answer is self-evident. It is due to mismanagement by the respective State governments. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation whether it is correct that it is not proposed to construct an international airport terminal in Brisbane until 1992. Is the Minister aware that tenders were called recently for a hotel on the airport site and one of the proposals included the construction of an international terminal as well as a hotel? Can the Minister confirm that the proposal for the combined international air terminal and hotel is being reviewed on its merits along with the other proposals received? Does the Minister not agree that the growth of tourism in Queensland and the fact that Expo 1988 is being held in Brisbane highlight the need for an international air terminal as soon as possible and that it should not be deferred until 1992? Senator GIETZELT —I have briefings on 19 different issues dealing with aviation and no information at all on the question raised by Senator Bjelke-Petersen. As she has raised a matter of some importance I will seek an early response so that I will be able to reply to her. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister for Finance seen the letter from the Liberal Party seeking campaign funds under the slogan `Win Back Government'? Can he comment on the claims in this letter that not only would a Liberal government remove the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax but also that it would introduce a five-point plan including industrial relations reform, greater recognition of the crucial role of export industries and reduced government interference? Opposition senators-Hear, hear! Senator CROWLEY —Thanks, troops. Because of what I will say next, I am glad that this has support. In the light of the Liberal Opposition's spending list of $2 billion in extra expenditure, can the Minister elaborate on how reduced taxes go with increased spending? Does he also think that the slogan of winning back government is a blatant statement of the Liberal Opposition's intention rather than what is best for Australia? Senator Michael Baume —Have you ever heard of the Laffer curve? Senator Grimes —Patrick Partners style economics. Senator WALSH —I did not think anyone still took the Laffer curve seriously. As my colleague Senator Grimes suggests, perhaps one needs a background in Patrick Partners to do so because figures did not mean much for Patrick Partners, and while reality had little to do-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to answer Senator Crowley's question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. It is a quite substantial divorcement from reality. I have seen the letter to which Senator Crowley refers. I suppose that it is the letter. The letter has been addressed to somebody but the name has been wiped out and I cannot read it even through the back. I do not know whether it was sent to Senator Crowley. There is a precedent for that sort of thing, because Mr Sinclair sent a letter to Senator Grimes appealing for funds, so I suppose that one should not be surprised if Mr Howard sent one to Senator Crowley appealing for funds. It would appear that both the Opposition parties-- Senator Grimes —I addressed the reply to George Sinclair. Senator WALSH —Did he send a reply back to the honourable senator? Senator Grimes —Yes. Senator WALSH —George Sinclair replied to Senator Grimes's reply. Apparently both Opposition parties have listed medical practitioners-I think that is the most logical conclusion that one could draw from these facts-to whom they send letters appealing for funds. I have already dealt with the question of taxation in two previous answers I gave to questions in the Senate today. Senator Crowley did, however, raise the question of the Liberal Party's commitment to deregulate the economy if in government. Mr Howard was in government and a Minister for seven years. He held the key economic portfolio for five of those years and he deregulated nothing. So I would prefer to judge the worth of that letter by the record of the person who signed it rather than the rhetoric within it. Anybody who has a passing knowledge of Australian politics or political history would have noticed that the Liberal Party is always, in government, in coalition, federally, with the National Party, and that the National Party is still the greatest bunch of pork-barrellers and regulators that the world has ever seen. It has reached its highest point of development in the State of Queensland, where the National Party is in fact the Government. So, whatever brave rhetoric may pour out of Mr Howard's mouth now, should he be back in coalition government I predict that absolutely nothing will happen because the National Party would not let him act. It has been a longstanding propensity of the Liberal Party to be heroic in opposition and cowardly in coalition. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement to correct a matter of fact contained in a speech I made to the Senate in the last session. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —On 5 June last, during the matters of public interest debate, I expressed my concern about the recommendation of the Kerr White report that the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine at Sydney University be replaced. In the course of my remarks I referred to some statements by the United States health professionals that suggested that Dr Kerr White, the head of the investigating committee which produced the report, was biased against schools of public health. I quoted from a letter from Dr Jacob Brody, Dean of the Office of Public Health, University of Illinois, in which Dr Brody said: I suspect they stem at least in some part, from the fact that he- that is, Dr Kerr White- was fired from Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health Faculty and harbours some bitterness about this. I quoted from that letter accurately believing that it was factually correct. Dr Blewett, the Minister for Health, has now drawn to my attention first a telegram and then a letter which relate to this matter. The telegram from Dr Brody to Dr Blewett states: I was in error in my letter to C. B. Kerr for which I certainly owe Kerr White an apology. Dr White was not fired from Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health. I regret having communicated false information. A letter sent subsequently by Dr Brody to Dr Kerr White states: I apologise to you for transmitting incorrect information when I stated you had been fired from Johns Hopkins. I was misinformed and clearly in error. I am grateful to the Minister for Health for having drawn those to my attention. By quoting accurately from Dr Brody's first letter, it appears that I have repeated an untrue assertion about Dr Kerr White. I therefore make it clear to honourable senators that Dr Kerr White was not fired from Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health but in fact resigned. I should also make it clear that this statement in no way lessens my concern about the recommendations of the Kerr White report that the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine be replaced. Senator PARER(Queensland) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator PARER —By way of background, honourable senators will be aware of the disastrous mine explosion at Moura and the resultant deaths of 12 people in that mine. Following that disaster, in addition to the normal workers compensation and superannuation payouts through the miners' pension fund a public fund was set up. This fund is controlled, in fact, by the unions. A lot of people contributed to that fund. More importantly, the employer at Moura, Thiess Dampier Mitsui Coal Pty Ltd, kicked off the fund with a contribution of $250,000. The company, having either promised that money or given it, was then advised by its tax consultants that its contribution to that fund would attract a fringe benefits tax. I was advised accordingly. I checked that claim with tax experts within the mining industry and within the chartered accounting profession. Generally the view was that, yes, it would attract the fringe benefits tax, for the following reasons: First of all, the definition of `employee' includes employees past, present and future; secondly, `employee' also includes an associate; and, thirdly, a fringe benefit is defined as any benefit. That fund was set up simply to provide for the families of those people who were so tragically killed. I asked the company involved whether it had sought a ruling from the Australian Taxation Office. The company said that it had not but would be applying for such a ruling. It said, however, that if it did ask for a ruling it would be lucky to get a reply within 12 months because that is the time it normally takes to get a ruling from the Taxation Office. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Parer to make his personal explanation. He has been given leave to make a personal explanation and I suggest that he is quite exceeding the bounds of such an explanation. Senator PARER —Thank you, Mr President. Senator Button —Just say you were wrong. Senator PARER —I will not say that I was wrong. I am right. As a result of that announcement some quite hysterical claims were made by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). At that stage those claims lacked credibility, because the honourable member for Capricornia lacks credibility. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to withdraw that remark. Senator PARER —Mr President, I withdraw that remark. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Parer to confine his remarks to a personal explanation, or I shall ask him to resume his seat. Senator PARER —Thank you, Mr President. I claimed, quite correctly, that under the legislation as it was written-I very clearly pointed this out-the company involved was liable for a fringe benefits tax. That was supported by expert advice. Subsequently-this is the point of my personal explanation and my claim that I have been misrepresented-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) appeared on State Affair on Channel 7 on 14 August. During that program, either because of ignorance or deliberately-I do not know which-he tried to say that I had said that the beneficiaries would be subject to the fringe benefits tax. At no time did I say that. I said that the company that had made the contribution would be subject to fringe benefits tax. Subsequently the Taxation Office or the Treasury made a few statements which I think are worth repeating. One of those statements was that the payment was an ex gratia payment. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator clearly is out of order. I ask him to resume his seat or else come to the point of his personal explanation. Senator PARER —Thank you, Mr President. I will come to the point. The point is that I was misrepresented by the Prime Minister, either through ignorance or deliberately. The PRESIDENT —Order! I present a special report of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry which covers the effect of Mr Justice Murphy's illness upon the Commission's proceedings. For the information of the Senate, I also table a statement by the Presiding Officers, dated 4 August 1986, following a meeting with the Presiding Member of the Commission; and copies of letters, dated 6 August 1986, forwarding a copy of the Commission's special report to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button); the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney); the Leader of the Australian Democrats and the two Independent senators, Senator Harradine and Senator Vallentine. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-proposed: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.29) —Mr President, the Opposition does not believe that this is the appropriate moment to debate this special report of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry to you and Madam Speaker which you have tabled. However, I must put on record the fact that the Opposition is very concerned about a number of aspects of the report and the views which are reported to the Senate and which are held by the Commission. In particular, I refer to this statement in paragraph 5: The situation which existed at the date when the Act became law, 13 May 1986, was such that Parliament regarded the task allotted to the Commission as one of national importance. That situation remains unchanged. It proceeds to state: Counsel assisting the Commission estimate that the hearing of evidence on all present allegations, including cross-examination, up to the stage at which the Judge might be called upon to give evidence would last at least four months, and possibly much longer. It concludes by indicating that it would need an extension of its time from 30 September this year to 31 March 1987 but reports, however, that the prognosis in a medical certificate presents obvious problems to the Commission in continuing its hearings. The Opposition has given, and will continue to give, very close consideration to this report. We understand that the Government intends to introduce legislation today in relation to this question following receipt of this report. We do not believe it is suitable in those circumstances to debate this question until that legislation is brought into the Parliament. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Act, I present the annual report of the Department of the Senate for the year 1985-86 and, pursuant to resolution of the Senate of 25 March 1982, I present the annual report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing for the year 1985-86. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit dated 27 November 1985. The report was distributed to honourable senators in November last year and was tabled in the House of Representatives at that time, but a copy for tabling in the Senate was not received. Assent to the following Bills reported: Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1986 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1986 Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill 1986 Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 Fringe Benefits Tax Bill 1986 Fringe Benefits Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1986 Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Bill 1986 Supply Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 Supply Bill (No. 2) 1986-87 Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1986-87 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1986 Taxation (Interest on Underpayments) Bill 1986 Taxation Boards of Review (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Bill 1986 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 Income Tax (Securities and Agreements) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1986 Taxation Laws Amendment (Foreign Tax Credits) Bill 1986 Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Capital Gains) Bill 1986 Income Tax (Rates) Amendment (Capital Gains) Bill 1986 Dairy Produce Bill 1986 Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Bill 1986 Dairy Produce Levy (No. 2) Bill 1986 Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy (Termination of Levy) Bill 1986 Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy (Termination of Levy) Bill 1986 Dairy Legislation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Wine Research Repeal Bill 1986 Grape Research Levy Bill 1986 Grape Research Levy Collection Bill 1986 States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1986 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1986 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1986 Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1986 Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1986 Migration Amendment Bill 1986 Futures Industry Bill 1986 Futures Industry (Fees) Bill 1986 Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment (Futures Industry) Bill 1986 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1986 Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 Copyright Amendment Bill 1986 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill 1986 Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill 1986 Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1986 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill 1986 Tobacco Charge (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1986 Tobacco Charge (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1986 Tobacco Charge (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1986 Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1986 Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill 1986 Industry Research and Development Bill 1986 Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 1986 Motion (by Senator Vigor) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make proper provision for the self-government of the Australian Capital Territory by the establishment of a freely and democratically elected assembly with legislative powers. The PRESIDENT —It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 1 August 1986, of former Senator Sydney Ambrose Negus. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 1 August 1986, of Sydney Ambrose Negus, Senator for the State of Western Australia from 1971 to 1974, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and the members of his family in their bereavement. Sydney Ambrose Negus was born on 12 March 1912 in Perth. He was a building contractor by occupation and won his seat as an independent senator for Western Australia at the November 1970 election. Those of us who are long in the political tooth, if that is the appropriate expression, will recall that he fought his campaign solely on the abolition of Federal death duties. He entered the Senate in July 1971 and lost his seat at the May 1974 double dissolution election. Sydney Negus served with the Australian Imperial Force between 1928 and 1931. He held officer status in the United States Navy from 1942 to 1946 and was awarded the Certificate of Merit. I did not know former Senator Negus; he left the Senate shortly before I arrived. On behalf of the Government I extend to his widow and members of his family sincere sympathy in their bereavement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I wish to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the expression of sympathy to the widow of Mr Sydney Negus and members of his family. Mr Negus had a relatively brief parliamentary career, serving only between 1971 and 1974, but it would be fair to say that many people would regard him as having made a quite notable contribution to politics and government in Australia. Whilst many may disagree with his view that all death duties should be abolished, he prosecuted that aim to very good effect. In the 1971 election he won a seat in the Senate that otherwise would have been won by my Party. I was a very close friend of the man who, as a result of that campaign, never entered the Senate. Mr Negus's campaign was very quickly rewarded, with governments, both State and Federal, moving in the ensuing years to remove death duties. It has to be said that that included governments which seemed to have a philosophic attachment to death duties but which found both the wave of public opinion and the fact that it was very difficult to have death duties in one State but not in another impossible to withstand. Senator Negus had a very distinctive contribution to make to the Australian political scene. He serves as a reminder that the major political parties which generally form governments in this country cannot take the electorate for granted. I think many Australian electors would regard his contribution as one that was significantly greater than that of many of us in this place. I join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate in expressing sympathy to his widow and family and in recalling his brief but rather notable career in this place. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —The members of the National Party of Australia in the Senate also wish to be associated with this motion of condolence moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). I suppose Mr Negus was one of those rare people who came in here on a single issue. It was an issue that was very dear to the heart of the then Country Party of Australia, now the National Party. As Senator Chaney has said, it does us well to take notice of the fact that, although we belong to major political parties, quite often the people out there have minds of their own. When somebody such as former Senator Negus is able to focus the attention of those minds the major parties also should pay attention. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Former Senator Negus came into the Senate at the same time as a number of us-Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and I are some of the survivors of that period-and he lasted as a senator for only a three-year period. As has been pointed out by other speakers, he came here with a commitment to abolish estate and death duties, and he played a significant part in achieving that objective. In common with only a few members of this Parliament, he also served during World War II as an officer in the United States Navy. Although I did not share his blanket opposition to death duties, as chairman of a committee that was appointed by the Whitlam Government, I came to appreciate the commitment Senator Negus had to the abolition of death and estate duties. I readily agree that he was instrumental in alerting public opinion to some of the anomalous aspects of the Federal legislation dealing with those issues. As chairman of the committee I came to appreciate the sincerity of Senator Negus and his capacity, almost singlehandedly, to impact public opinion on that issue. It is significant that from time to time people in Western Australia have been able to elect Independent senators who have had a strongly held view and who have found their place subsequently in the Australian Senate. Whilst, as I say, I did not agree with Senator Negus's absolute position, he nevertheless played a very significant part in the preparation of the committee's report insofar as he was able to draw attention to the fact that the very wealthy people in this country were able to avoid their responsibilities by availing themselves of legal and accountancy principles in respect of estate and death duties. It was ordinary people, caught up in the inflationary spiral in the 1950s and 1960s, who were being caught by the legislation. If it was a redistributive process, it was not realising its objectives because the very wealthy people were able to contrive to arrange their financial affairs in such a way as to avoid their responsibilities. So Senator Negus will go down in history as a person with a singleminded approach who was able to realise an objective, which is something rarely done by members of parliament. To that extent the people who have profited by the abolition of Federal death duties owe Senator Negus a great deal. Senator Negus had many other interests, of course. He had a view about road safety which he often expressed in this place and he made some thoughtful and novel contributions. For example, he pointed out here the need for road safety signs to use imperial and metric measurements during the changeover period. We all recall the petitions that were presented about the change to a metric system. He suggested a system of graded driving licences under which drivers would have to pass more rigorous tests before being permitted to drive at high speeds-a very interesting idea. He was an early advocate of the wearing of crash helmets by all motor cycle riders and passengers. So Senator Negus was a man who, in the brief period in which he was a member of the Senate, was able to make a number of significant impacts upon legislation and public opinion. To that extent we mourn his passing. He was one of a band of men who are fast disappearing from the Parliament insofar as he served actively during World War II. On behalf of myself and members of the Government I extend our regret at the passing of Senator Negus and offer condolences to his family. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —On behalf of my colleagues I would like to associate the Australian Democrats with the condolence motion that has been moved by Senator Button. Like many other senators in this place today, I did not know Senator Negus, but one must admire any individual whose commitment to an issue or to a variety of issues was such that he campaigned strongly and publicly enough to secure for himself a seat in the Federal Parliament in order to pursue his goals and, in particular, his aim to abolish death duties in what is, I suppose, the most public forum, if not necessarily always the most effective forum, for change in this country. Most honourable senators would agree that it is a shame that more people do not have such a strong commitment to an ideal that they pursue it with the enthusiasm Senator Negus did. The country, I believe, would certainly be the better for it. Too little of his brand of common sense and concern for, perhaps, ordinary issues that affect ordinary Australians is expressed in this place or in many other parliaments in this country. The Australian Democrats extend their sympathy to Senator Negus's widow. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 5 August 1986, of former Senator Arthur George Poyser. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 5 August 1986, of Arthur George Poyser, Senator for the State of Victoria from 1966 to 1975, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and the members of his family in their bereavement. George Poyser was born in Ballarat in 1915. In later life he was Secretary of the Geelong Trades Hall Council from 1955 to 1961, Assistant Secretary of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party from 1961 to 1967 and a member of the Miscellaneous Workers Union. He was chosen by the Parliament of Victoria to represent that State in the Senate under section 15 of the Constitution on 26 October 1966 and was subsequently re-elected to the Senate in 1967 and 1974. He lost his seat in the December 1975 elections. During George Poyser's nine years as a senator, he served on a number of parliamentary committees, including the Senate Standing Orders Committee, the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade, the Senate Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures and the Joint Committee on Public Works. He was Deputy Government Whip from December 1972 to April 1974 and became Government Whip in July 1974. I first took my seat in the Senate in August 1974, when George Poyser was new in his job as Government Whip. I recall my meeting with him in that capacity as being very embarrassing and difficult because I had it fixed in my head that the Senate resumed after dinner at 8.15, when in fact it resumed at 8 o'clock. On my fifth night here, I think, I missed three divisions between 8 p.m. and 8.15 p.m. George Poyser on that occasion reminded me of the most severe schoolmaster I had ever had. I remember asking Senator Wheeldon what he thought I ought to do. He said: `You only have one course and that is to resign'. On that occasion I had been here for only five days and I felt mine was going to be a very short career. George Poyser was Whip from 1974 until 1975 and was also Temporary Chairman of Committees in that period. During the War he served with the 2/5 Australian Infantry Battalion in the Middle East from 1940 until 1941. George Poyser was a man who worked for better conditions for the less privileged in our society. He was a very active and compassionate community worker in his own city of Geelong. Even in here his maiden speech was devoted to the problems which migrants to Australia were experiencing at the time he was elected. He was also a loyal and tireless worker for the Australian Labor Party and gave valued service to the labour movement in various ways. I might also add-it is not a virtue which is usually reported-that George Poyser was a very keen and skilled fisherman. Fishing is a pastime and activity which connotes a reflective capacity, a very endearing quality in a person. He certainly had those. George Poyser was a respected member of the Senate and on behalf of the Government I extend to his widow, Dorothy, and to his family our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I support the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). On behalf of the Opposition I extend our sympathy to the widow and family of Senator Poyser. He was one of the many Australian Labor Party politicians who came from the trade union movement. He was a man who gave the impression that he had started not so much as a trade union official but indeed as a worker in the industries with which he was concerned. He remained deeply concerned about the individual situation and the conditions of the people he represented. In that sense I think he was a totally genuine representative of the Labor movement. He was certainly a person who had my personal respect. I got to know him very well because I became Opposition Whip while he was Government Whip. Senator Button need not think that he delivered lectures only to members of the then Government; he was quite capable of delivering rather stern lectures to the then Opposition Whip-that was me-and anyone else who happened to be passing. I found him a very con- genial Whip to work opposite. Indeed he had some of Senator Georges's qualities in that he was able to separate his political views from the administration and operation of the Senate, which is essential if the Senate is to be a workable place. I express my personal appreciation for the way the late George Poyser worked with me when we were Whips and I include the very difficult and stressful period in late 1975 when political passions ran very high in Canberra. I still found George a person with whom I could work in a sensible way. I join the Leader of the Government in the Senate in having some satisfaction in George Poyser's very cheerful retirement years. He visited Canberra occasionally. It was always very good to see him and he was always very enthusiastic about his post-parliamentary life. He certainly talked of his fishing and I must say that I thought he seemed a man who had life by the throat. I believe it would be a matter of pleasure to all honourable senators that George Poyser enjoyed so much his post-parliamentary years. On behalf of the Opposition I again express sympathy to his family and our very great regret at his death. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —The members of the National Party of Australia we also wish to be associated with this motion of condolence moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, and supported by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney. Former Senator Poyser was one of a very select band of people who have become known as Whips in this establishment. I think I am correct in saying that Senator Georges succeeded him after 1975. One of the stories I heard when I first became a senator was that one of the reasons Senator Georges was so successful was that he was so delinquent when Senator Poyser was the Whip and he learned the hard way how Whips operate. Nonetheless, as has been indicated by the two previous speakers, Senator Poyser served not only his country but also his own political party and the trade union movement quite well in this chamber. We wish to be associated with the motion of condolence and express our sympathy to his widow and family. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —On behalf of my Australian Democrat colleagues I too indicate our support for the condolence motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, on the death of Senator George Poyser and extend our sympathy to his widow and family. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —I add my remarks on this occasion of a condolence motion for George Poyser. Like the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, and the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, I was one of a fairly large group who arrived in this place in 1974 when George Poyser became the Government Whip. The first official occasion when I had dealings with George was when he announced to me that I was to second the Address-in-Reply. As I had not only not been to Canberra before but also had not been to Parliament House and did not know whom the Address-in-Reply was to, or anything else, I suggested that that was not a very good idea. George suggested to me that if I chose to turn down that opportunity I might not get another opportunity in this place. I then quickly learned what Senator Button and Senator Chaney have referred to: George Poyser was a very colourful and very lively character in this place who lived life to the full and who took his job very seriously-as I think do most people who have come from extremely poor backgrounds as he did, who have worked hard, who have come up through the trade union movement and who have worked hard in political life and community life to achieve a position in this Parliament. George often spoke-it was mentioned at his funeral-about his childhood when his family had to move from house to house largely because they could not afford to pay the rent. Life was a continual struggle then. He often talked in a rather cheerful way about his Army career when he went to war. He was wounded in one of the first battles that the Australian forces took part in and, as he said, he was back in Australia before anyone else knew we were at war. George was a cheerful, sometimes scathing Whip in this place; he was a very efficient Whip. He approached life in a serious way but in a way which we all appreciated meant that he saw the brighter side of things. He also approached death in a way that I think many of us could emulate. For a long time he knew he was dying and he took his farewell of his various friends, those who could get to him and those who could phone him. He made certain arrangements for his own funeral and those of us who went found it to be what most of us would like funerals to be-a farewell to a beloved colleague, a farewell which was attended by many people. Arrangements had been made by him to ensure that, as he put it in a message that he gave our former colleague Cyril Primmer to read at the funeral, we recognised that it was an occasion of grief and sorrow but not an occasion of imagined terrors or unachievable expectations. We said farewell to George. Cyril Primmer made a very fine speech of farewell and then we sat and contemplated the great honour we had had of knowing such a person. Would that all our funerals could be such occasions. To his wife, Dorothy, who looked after him throughout their married life but in particular in his final months, to his children, who had so much respect for him as a father and as a community member, and to all his friends in Geelong, I also send my condolences and express my sorrow. We will miss George visiting here, as Senator Chaney said, telling us about his fishing exploits and about how much he had enjoyed life out of this place. I suppose he is the best example that it is possible to leave this place, have a decent and happy life and retain respect for one's colleagues. I think we will remember George. His wife Dorothy need have no regrets that he was anything other than highly respected in this place and in the community at large. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I wish to be associated with the motion of condolence in respect of our late comrade George Poyser, who spent most of his lifetime in activities associated with the causes designed to improve the living standards and lifestyles of ordinary people. For 12 years he was a full time official in both the industrial and party political movements before he was selected to fill a casual vacancy. He was subsequently elected to the Senate following his appointment to fill that casual vacancy in 1966. He was a unique man in that he held very firm views. He called a spade a spade. Nevertheless, he was able to show that he could live with other points of view. George was able to gain the support of his Party to become the Deputy Government Whip for a period and subsequently Government Whip when we were re-elected to government in 1974. I think he may have set something of a record for a senator because two days after taking his seat he had to stand for re-election. Of course, in a later period he displayed an extraordinary selflessness in volunteering to be dropped from the number one position on the Victorian ALP Senate ticket to the number four position, in order to help the preselection processes of the Party. That decision, which indicates the sort of man that George Poyser was, could have cost him two years in the Parliament but for the infamous events of 1975 which led to a double dissolution. In that gesture, of course, he brought about the election of my colleague the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button. Looking back at his parliamentary contribution, the number of issues with which he was associated must be recognised. Some of his views have become conventional wisdom or have gained broad community support. I refer, for example, to his opposition to the war in Vietnam and the draft which was introduced as a means of prosecuting that war. Indeed, he took part in a courageous act of civil disobedience, for which he risked prosecution under the Crimes Act, when he joined four other members of parliament-Dr Cairns, Dr Cass, Senator Hendrickson and David Bornstein from the Victorian Legislative Assembly-in signing a public statement urging resistance to the National Service Act. He was an early opponent of the indiscriminate slaughter of kangaroos. He had a concern for human beings and animals. He drew attention early to the racist aspect of our immigration policy prior to 1972, when assisted passages to our country were granted only to persons of European descent. He strongly criticised sporting contacts with the apartheid regime in South Africa, when prevailing views were quite different and not as mature as they are today. He had a strong commitment to social welfare. In particular, he was concerned about maladministration in nursing homes, migrant hostels and psychiatric hospitals at a time when abuses were widespread. He played a significant part in alerting the Senate to those deficiencies. He drew attention to the absurd Senate voting system which was in force until recently, in which failure to number all squares-this will be recalled by honourable senators-rendered a vote invalid. He played a part in bringing about the ultimate change to that system which I think was a very significant factor in avoiding the amount of informal voting that took place under the old, complicated system. He had a strong commitment to consumer affairs and consumer protection, in particular from disreputable finance and insurance companies. In a lighter vein, I recall when he, along with a couple of others, advocated a more flexible dress code for members of parliament. He and two other members wore shorts and long socks during a Senate sitting in 1974. He freely admitted that he was not the most elegant person to take part in that experiment, but he did bring about a more flexible position as a result of that incident. I will remember him with a great deal of affection for the sorts of causes that he stood for. I will remember him for the fact that he was one of a declining band of veterans in this place. Both former senators who are the subject of condolence motions today were members of that band. I have heard that Senator Kilgariff is to retire. I think Senator Sir John Carrick will also retire. I do not want to comment other than to say that I have heard that he might retire. I will be retiring from the Senate in 1988. That means, of course, that very few persons will be left in this place who served during World War II. I extend my deepest sympathy to Dorothy and to George's family. I have heard not only from Senator Grimes but also from former Senator Justin O'Byrne-who visited him only a few days before his passing-that he knew of his imminent death and that he had very courageously organised for the event that took place a few days later. Some of our former colleagues who knew of George's very serious illness were able to visit him and report to us on the way in which George dealt with all issues. He was extraordinarily devoted to the parliamentary processes and to the causes which he held dear. I join the other members of the Senate in the generous remarks that have been expressed. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —I rise to pay my respects to George Poyser and support the motion of condolence moved by the Government and supported by the Opposition. I was elected in 1974. I have found it entertaining to hear some of the stories about George from those days. He certainly had a fairly robust style in his role as Government Whip. I support the words of Senator Grimes that he was an efficient Whip. I particularly remember him in regard to the historic joint sitting of the Parliament. He was the Government Whip in the Senate at the time and had a lot to do with the organisation of the joint sitting. I got a guernsey to speak during the joint sitting. I remember that George Poyser was most courteous, considerate and efficient in the organisation of that joint sitting. I remember at one time he interjected while I was speaking. I did not then know which State he came from. I accused him of coming from one of the smaller States, so he could not possibly understand what I was talking about, as I came from Queensland. I corrected that later. We became friends after that and I enjoyed his company and that of his wife for many years. After he left the Parliament, whenever he came to Canberra he would call in to see me. I have enjoyed many of the stories that honourable senators have mentioned this afternoon. I extend my sympathy to Mrs Poyser-that is what I always called her-and George's family and wish them all the happiness that I know George would want them to have. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —I join my colleagues in expressing deep regret at the passing of former Senator George Poyser. I was one of many senators who were elected in 1974. I refer to Senator Peter Baume, Senator Fred Chaney, Senator John Button and Senator Don Grimes. I refer also to Jean Melzer from Victoria, Kathy Martin and Glen Sheil from Queensland and Gordon McIntosh and Peter Walsh, along with myself, from Western Australia. Most of them have moved to bigger and better things. I am still a humble back bencher, as I told George a few months ago. He said that I was in the best place and that Ministers, those people holding high office in this place, were restricted by their position. The first impression I had of George Poyser has already been mentioned by Senator Button. It was not my intention to mention him by name, as he is still here. The incident concerned some legislation that the Government was extremely anxious to enact dealing with industrial relations. As honourable senators will know, at that time the numbers in the chamber were even and the Government therefore had to rely on every honourable senator being present. I understand that Senator Button went for rather a lengthy meal at the Lobby restaurant and therefore was not available when the Opposition called a division immediately after the suspension of the sitting for dinner. I was not aware that Senator Button thought that the dinner break continued until 8.15 p.m., but that is his story and I shall let him stick to it. I left the chamber following George Poyser, the Whip, just as John Button came through the glass doors outside the chamber. I had occasion to recall this when I visited George earlier this year. I thought that I was in a shearing shed or down on the wharves when I heard the language coming from George in ordering John Button into his office to explain why he was late. George Poyser was once, prior to our coming here, Temporary Chairman of Committees. When I was elected to that position he rang to congratulate me. He said that I was not to follow an example he had set. He had been listening for a considerable time during a debate to a member of the Country Party waxing eloquent and had become a little annoyed. He came out with a most unsuitable expletive from the chair, to the shock and horror of the then Clerk of the Senate and honourable senators present. George later told me that he saw the then President, Sir Magnus Cormack, who refused to accept his resignation as Temporary Chairman of Committees because he valued his work. I think that we all valued George's work, both when he was a back bencher and later when he left parliament and we were merely friends. George was a marvellous friend to me when he was a senator and more particularly when he left. I stayed with him and Dorothy on a couple of occasions. He took us down to St Leonards, where he had a house to which he planned to retire but which eventually he had to give up. I have listened to most of his fishing tales, and was often tempted to buy him those teatowels with the fishing stories on them because George could tell as good a fishing story as anyone else. Honourable senators will remember what happened after the 1974 election and at the time the Whitlam Government was removed from office in 1975. There were three quick elections. Because of my position on the ticket, I had three elections in 2 1/2 years. I mentioned that to George, and he informed me that he had had three elections in 13 months. He was appointed to the Senate in November. The term of the person whom he replaced did not expire for 12 months but to be returned to the Senate George was still required under the laws governing elections to stand for election at the time of the House of Representatives election. Twelve months later, a Senate election came up. George's three elections in 13 months greatly surpassed the mere three in 2 1/2 years of which I could boast. A few months ago George rang me at Parliament House to tell me that he had terminal cancer. He had already discussed it with his family and had decided that he would not go to hospital for treatment. He had come across an organisation in Geelong, a hospice organisation, which called into the homes of people with cancer. He said that he was relying on the organisation's representatives to carry out certain activities, which they did. They called on George about 9 o'clock on the night before he died and again, I understand, at about 3 o'clock in the morning. Some of the members of the organisation attended his funeral. George had a marvellous relationship with his family-not only his immediate family, but also his son-in-law and daughters-in-law. His grandchildren, particularly, thought of him as a friend. A person can be paid no greater compliment than to be recognised as a friend, particularly by relatives. Dorothy is a great friend of mine. George was a great man who will be remembered as a great man and as a great representative of the Victorian people. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I add my words of sympathy to those that have already been well expressed. In a variety of ways George Poyser, perhaps more than many other honourable senators, had considerable influence on me. George, by his guidance, made me more effective in my first two or three years as a senator than I could otherwise have been. George had problems with me, which already have been related to the Senate. For some reason he called me the bedouin-someone usually hidden, to be found when needed and always elusive. I remember missing a connection overseas-we were short of numbers in the Senate, as has already been said-but the next aeroplane leaving the place where I was stranded was not due for three days. I was not prepared to ring George directly. I rang a friend who hesitated somewhat and then passed on the message that I would not be in the chamber when I was supposed to be. John Button suffered because of his brief fall from grace, so one can imagine how I suffered when I was missing from this Parliament for three days. I recall George's great amusement when he discovered that I was to follow him as Whip. He could not believe it. He was astonished and it took him some time to become used to the fact that the person whom he considered to be the most delinquent-a term already used-was appointed to follow him. There is no doubt that his example was one that I followed. He was a good instructor on how this place should be organised. He ran it very firmly. I discovered why at times he was so irascible-the job was difficult. He did the job extremely well, as his opponents have already said. George was a man of preciseness and personal discipline, which he imposed fairly on others, and a man with immense loyalty to his party and to the people whom he represented. He was immensely loyal to his family. His courage in facing up to death is an example that few of us will be able to follow. I express my sympathy to his wife, Dorothy, and to his family. I am certain that they are proud of George Poyser, proud of every moment he lived, and proud of the example he showed in his last moments. The PRESIDENT —Before I invite honour- able senators to stand as a mark of respect, I would like to place on record my appreciation of the parliamentary services and personal friendship to me of the late George Poyser. I think I can fairly say that the day Senator Poyser walked into this Parliament to fill a casual vacancy was also the day on which the Parliament was being dissolved. He had not been allotted a room and he asked me where he could use a phone to ring his wife. I took him down to my room so that he could ring his wife and, as a result of that, we became very close personal friends. Indeed, in a period in 1973 when I was hospitalised, it was George and his wife, Dorothy, who invited my wife and me to go with them to their holiday home at St Leonards. As has been said, he was the Government Whip in the period 1974 to 1975, at a time when I was Manager of Government Business in the Senate. In those critical days in October and November 1975 when the Government was fighting for its existence, I remember that every evening there was a discussion in my ministerial room between Senator Poyser and myself on the one hand and Senator Withers, the then Leader of the Opposition, on the other. Bearing in mind what has been said here earlier about language, I have often thought that if only one had a tape recording of the things that were said in that room in those days a transcript of it would make tremendous political reading and I am also sure the censor would have some concerns about it. George Poyser and former Senator Cyril Primmer were close friends, and I can remember sitting here evening after evening listening to them tell tale after tale about the old timers of the Labor movement in Victoria, the early days of Warrnambool, and the days in Geelong. George Poyser was a great raconteur and a close, dependable and loyal friend, and my deepest sympathy and that of my wife Lorna go to his widow, Dorothy, and the members of her family in their sad bereavement. George was a great Australian. Having said that, I invite honourable senators to stand as a mark of respect to his memory. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. The PRESIDENT —Order! As a mark of respect to the memory of the late Senator Poyser and the late Senator Negus, the sitting of the Senate is suspended until 8 p.m. Sitting suspended from 4.23 to 8 p.m. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —by leave-I table the following papers: Budget Statements 1986-87 Estimates of Expenditure and Revenue of the Commonwealth Public Account 1986-87 Portfolio Program Estimates 1986-87 Payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities 1986-87 Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1986 Australia's Overseas Development Assistance Program 1986-87 National Income and Expenditure 1985-86 Income Tax Statistics Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the Year Ending on 30 June 1987 Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in Respect of the Year Ending on 30 June 1987 Particulars of Proposed Expenditure in Respect of the Year Ending on 30 June 1987 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments. I seek leave to incorporate a statement outlining the Government's budgetary proposals for the financial year 1986-87. Leave not granted. Senator WALSH —Those opposite are all masochists. I cannot understand them. Perhaps they are sadists, not masochists. Tonight the Treasurer is delivering in another place his Budget Speech for 1986-87. It is my privilege to outline to the Senate the Budget proposals of the Government. Over the past year the factors which determine Australia's national prosperity have changed dramatically. The strong economic growth and the huge employment growth of the last three years have now been slowed due to the sudden collapse of our export earnings. The prospects for our future growth, built on the expectation that we could readily sell our traditional products, have been substantially diminished. Many Australians have wondered why the economy was doing so well in 1985 and yet, apparently, doing so poorly in 1986. The answer lies in the dramatic collapse in world commodity prices since late last year. We have been placed in a position where we are failing to cover the cost of our imports to the tune of more than a billion dollars a month-and inevitably our growth had to slow. With the world having slashed our national income by over $6 billion we could not continue on as though nothing had happened. To try would see the world force destructive adjustment on Australia making it hostage to the international financial community. And that is not a position acceptable to this Government. We believe that Australia must maintain control over its own destiny and this can only be done by facing the problem squarely and making the remedial changes quickly and decisively. This the Government will do through this Budget and other policy changes. It is imperative that our domestic economy and our standard of living adjust to our changed trading circumstances so that we can make an early return to higher growth and stronger employment. What precisely are the adjustments required? As a nation, if we are to become more independent and self-sufficient, we need to invest more and consume less. In other words, we must save for the future rather than spend for the present. The Government can help this process directly by spending less and borrowing less, thereby improving the climate for lower interest rates and for private sector investment. The savings and tax decisions in this Budget are also designed to restrain the growth of private consumption. But the Budget alone cannot achieve all of the changes Australia requires. It is also essential that Australians exercise restraint over wages and prices. We simply cannot allow the inevitable inflationary effects of the dollar's fall to feed into our cost structure. Contrary to the beliefs of some, Australia is well equipped to make the adjustments to rectify its problems. We have made enormous progress in the past 3 years in modernising and freeing up the economy. We have a much lower wage cost structure, a vibrant financial sector, and vastly more competitive industries than a few years ago. While we have now encountered serious difficulties in our primary export markets, through our combined efforts and continued restraint we can turn those efforts towards new opportunities. For these reasons, the Budget incorporates a very large cut in spending and a very large cut in Government borrowing. In making these vital decisions we have sought to ensure that the burden of change is spread as fairly as possible across the community. Even in difficulty, however, we have maintained the Labor Party's traditional commitment to the most needy. But we have not shirked our responsibility to take hard decisions where these have been required. Reflecting this, the Government has been able to bring the deficit down from $5,726 million last year to $3,503 million this year. I repeat, this Budget cuts the deficit by $2,223 million to $3,503 million. It is also important to understand that while in total the Commonwealth has budgeted for a deficit of $3.5 billion, much of this deficit arises from spending abroad on defence equipment and other items. Allowing for these overseas transactions there will be an estimated domestic budget surplus of $805 million. Combined with reductions in State borrowings, the large cut in the Budget deficit will dramatically lower government demand for borrowed funds. In fact, total public sector borrowings will be cut by more than $2 1/2 billion in 1986-87. The Government's bond selling program has been cut from $5.7 billion last year to around $3 billion this year. As a result, the net bond selling task will be zero. I would point out that the large reduction in the deficit this year has been made notwithstanding economic developments tending to increase it. Wage restraint tends to lower taxes more than outlays in the short term. As I shall discuss later, the Budget figuring incorporates a 2 per cent discount to wages in the next National Wage Case. Without that assumption, the deficit would have been some $400 million less. The Government's resolve and achievement in this Budget is well reflected in the fact that if we had taken no action on outlays or receipts the deficit would have been $7.5 billion. We have brought it down by $4 billion, or more than half. THE BUDGET MEASURES Mr President, the deficit reduction in this Budget has been accomplished by an examination of outlays of unprecedented rigour. If we had done no more than provide for ongoing programs, outlays would have increased by 2.7 per cent in real terms. We have cut this back to zero real growth. To achieve this result, nearly $3 billion has been cut from existing programs. Cut backs have been made in most areas, with major reductions falling on social security, health, education, defence and overseas aid. In social security, the Government has decided on cutbacks of over $500 million. Included in those decisions, future six monthly indexation increases to beneficiaries will continue to be paid in full but will be deferred for six weeks. This means that the 4 per cent increase due in early November will now be paid in mid-December. In addition, the measures announced last year to relax income testing arrangements for pensions and benefits will be delayed 8 months until July 1987. These are the only changes to the general pension and benefits area. While seeking a contribution from this part of the Budget towards the resolution of our national problems, the Government has ensured that there will be no reductions in any existing pension or benefit payments. What is being required is a minimal sacrifice when compared with that being asked of wage and salary earners. There will be a crackdown on cheating and fraud in the social security system. We will not compromise our deep commitment to assist the genuinely needy. But abuse of the system will not be tolerated. Special reviews will be conducted by teams of officers to identify and disqualify those wrongfully receiving unemployment benefits. Additionally, reporting requirements for all unemployment beneficiaries will be tightened and it will be much harder for New Zealand citizens who are visiting Australia to qualify for unemployment and other benefits. There will also be reviews of sole parent beneficiaries to verify continuing eligibility. The Government is committed to implementing the Australia Card with a photograph, which will also assist in combatting social security fraud. Child maintenance arrangements are being reformed so that non-custodial parents will shoulder more financial responsibility for their children, rather than throwing the burden onto the taxpayer. In line with the Government's aim to target welfare assistance to the most needy, the family allowance for student children aged 16 and 17 will be income tested so that families with household income exceeding $39,000 will no longer receive it. In the same vein, the Government will in this Budget provide further assistance to the most needy, low income families with children and to the handicapped. These discretionary adjustments are detailed in the Budget Papers. The Government has taken a range of measures to help contain the growing cost of Australia's health system. Spending in this area will be cut by $300 million. First, strict measures have been adopted to reduce what were clearly excessive pathology charges by some medical practitioners. Second, the wage restraint asked of the workforce at large has been extended to medical practitioners by deferring increases in schedule fees until 1 November 1986. Third, the maximum patient contribution for medical services-I stress the maximum, not the typical-is to be raised from $10 to $20 from 1 November. Fourth, the bed day subsidy to private hospitals will cease from 1 October 1986, but some charitable hospitals will continue to receive assistance. But even with these savings, and particularly with the recent increases in salaries for nurses, the cost of the health system is continuing to rise. The Government therefore believes that the Medicare levy should be increased so that it makes a greater contribution to health costs and so that Medicare is self-financing. Accordingly, the Medicare levy will rise by a quarter of a per cent to 1.25 per cent from 1 December. Increasing the levy is a more equitable means of responding to unavoidable increases in health costs than the alternative of severely curtailing Medicare benefits. Pharmaceutical benefits have been another area of burgeoning costs in the health system. This has been a concern to both the Government and the very sick. New arrangements will reduce costs to the health system and provide relief to those most in need. From 1 November prescription drug users now paying a $5 contribution will pay up to a $10 maximum. New safety net arrangements mean individuals and families requiring more than 25 prescriptions a year will receive prescriptions beyond that number free of charge. Pensioners will continue to receive items on the Pharmaceutical Benefits list free of any charge. The Government believes it is only fair that participants in the higher education system share some part of its costs. Consequently a charge of $250 per year for all higher education students will be introduced in 1987 to offset-or, more accurately, partially offset- administration costs. This charge represents only a small part of the cost of providing higher education, and will contribute towards an additional student intake of 3000 in 1987. Lower income families will be protected; holders of tertiary allowances and post-graduate awards and overseas students paying the overseas student charge will not be affected. Spending on defence is to be held at 1 per cent real growth, saving $190 million, and overseas aid will be cut by $140 million. Expenditure on the new Parliament House is to be reduced by $30 million, sports facilities by $8 million and the Bicentennial Program by $25 million. The number of Commonwealth public servants will be reduced by 2000 over the year to June 1987, that is, June 1987 on June 1986. The Government has made numerous other expenditure cuts in reaching its $3 billion expenditure savings; details are set out in the Budget Papers. The overwhelming concern of the Government in bringing down this Budget has been to achieve an outcome appropriate for a nation with a trading problem of the magnitude now facing Australia. That is why spending has been held to zero real increase. That is why we have sought to produce the lowest practicable budget deficit. The Government has held outlays and the deficit well below the trilogy requirements. Outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product have been reduced to 29.4 per cent, compared with 30.1 per cent last year and 30.4 per cent the year before. The deficit has been reduced to only 1.4 per cent of gross domestic product, back to the average prevailing during the late 1950s and the 1960s. It is the fourth consecutive fall from the 5 per cent in prospect that we inherited from the Coalition Government in 1983. In pursuit of this objective and given the urgency of our predicament the Government has decided to lift the tax ratio about half a per cent above the 1984-85 outcome level. This decision has been taken to achieve an even larger reduction in the deficit, and to do so in an equitable way. Our trilogy of fiscal commitments was directed at restraining the size of Government over the medium-term and we reaffirm that fundamental objective. The Government has been spectacularly successful in lowering expenditure growth and the deficit. Moreover, it is our objective to bring the tax ratio back to 25 per cent of gross domestic product next year. This year, however, the first stage of the very substantial cuts in personal income tax provided by the tax reform program will be delayed three months. These cuts-at the previously announced rates-will now apply from 1 December this year. The second and final stage-reducing the top marginal tax rates to 49 cents and 40 cents-will apply from 1 July 1987 as scheduled. Legislation implementing both stages is being introduced in the House of Representatives tonight. These cuts-as well as improving incentive-will return to taxpayers about three times the revenue raised by the tax reform package. The Government has adopted a number of other revenue measures. In the main, the measures will restrain real household disposable incomes and consumption, consistent with the need for our living standards to be trimmed for a time. Wholesale sales tax will be increased on a range of consumer products including luxury motor vehicles, wine, certain non-alcoholic beverages and swimming pools. The sales tax law is also to be amended with effect from midnight tonight to curtail avoidance of taxes on computer software. The excise on petrol and diesel fuel will increase by 3 cents per litre from tonight. Because of the existing diesel rebate arrangements, this additional excise will not fall upon farmers and miners. The rates of the Bank Account Debits Tax will be increased by up to a half from 1 December 1986. The tax deferral advantages enjoyed by some companies with substituted accounting periods will be phased out over three years. PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY Mr President, the Budget I have outlined tonight will greatly assist Australia to adapt to the new international trading circumstances we face. However, budget policy must be supported by continued price and wage moderation. The restructuring of Australian industry facilitated by the depreciation of the dollar will accelerate provided we stay competitive with the rest of the world. Staying competitive means having a greater ability to supply our own market with Australian-made goods and to win a larger share of world markets. Over the past 3 years Australia's working men and women have shown commendable income restraint. More than any other single factor, their co-operation and good sense has been responsible for the creation of 630,000 jobs since April 1983. Over this period real labour costs have fallen by more than 7 per cent. Incidentally, over the same period in the United Kingdom, under a system which members of the Opposition would like to reproduce in Australia, real wages have increased by 11 1/2 per cent. It is not the fault of wage and salary earners that export prices have fallen. Just as it is not their fault that the dollar has fallen, pushing up import prices. But we cannot afford to let wages grow automatically in line with this price surge. If adverse trading conditions and a depreciating Australian dollar are the cause of the Consumer Price Index rising, it follows that to allow those increases to flow through automatically into wages would compound our problems. We would be adjusting our wages upwards not to compensate for the problem but to build the problem in. This would only lead Australia into a price and wage spiral. I am certain that all Australians will understand and accept that we cannot have our national income slashed by over $6 billion and at the same time seek to fully maintain our wages in real terms. Accordingly, at the next National Wage Case when the combined 4 per cent movement in the March and June quarter Consumer Price Index will be considered, the Government will argue to the Arbitration Commission that the proposed increase in wages be cut by 2 per cent. This means that wages will rise by 2 per cent less than the increase which would fully compensate for inflation. There are good and clear reasons for this. Last year award wages grew by 4 1/2 per cent. With a 2 per cent discount, wages are expected to grow at about the same moderate rates as in 1985-86. This means that over the course of the next year Australian wage increases will be broadly comparable with our major trading partners. A 2 per cent discount would therefore maintain our competitiveness and preserve our ability to compete on favourable terms with the rest of the world. The Government will also seek a further adjustment of the wage increase in the case commencing around April next year if economic conditions applying at the time warrant it. In determining its attitude to that case, the Government's main focus will continue to be on Australia's ongoing competitive position and our terms of trade performance. With its past record of success, the Government reaffirms its confidence in the Prices and Incomes Accord. The Accord framework will continue to deliver more economically and industrially responsible outcomes than any other real world alternative. The challenges now presented by severely depressed commodity prices demand a continuation of this approach. ECONOMIC OUTLOOK Mr President, it will take some time for the ground lost in our export markets to be recovered, and a stronger growth path to be resumed. As a result, we expect growth in the non-farm economy to be around 2 1/2 per cent in 1986-87 compared with 4 per cent last financial year. Most of that growth will stem from our improved international competitiveness; it will show up in the winning of new export markets and the replacement of imports with locally produced goods. However, the lower growth rate means that fewer jobs will be created over the next year than in the last twelve months. Employment growth is expected to slow to between 1 1/2 and 2 per cent, and as a consequence, unemployment could rise a little. Just as it will take some time for the benefits of the depreciation of the dollar to flow through the economy, it will also take some time before the adverse price effects of the depreciation are behind us. Consequently, reflecting the recent falls in the dollar, we expect the Consumer Price Index to increase by around 8 per cent on average in 1986-87. However, the trend in the latter part of the year and beyond will be downward. Mr President, the Budget I am presenting tonight responds decisively to the new international challenge facing Australia. It constitutes one of the basic and fundamental responses required to permanently improve Australia's trading performance. It makes the major shift down in Government spending and borrowing that will permit the new investment opportunities to be seized: - real spending growth has been cut to zero; - the deficit has been dramatically brought back to its late 1950s and 60s levels; and - Government calls on the nation's savings have been substantially alleviated. This Budget provides Australia with the opportunity to surmount its economic problems and maintain control over its economic destiny. It demonstrates the Government's absolute determination to do what has to be done to safeguard Australia's economic future. It demonstrates once again that, by resolute action and by some sacrifice all round, there is no problem that we cannot face and defeat together. OUTLAYS Mr President, I now provide more details of the expenditure cuts that have been made. Budget outlays in 1986-87 are estimated to total $74,764 million. As I stated earlier, this represents zero growth in real terms. In the previous thirty years lower real rates of growth have been achieved on only three occasions. This outcome reflects the determined approach which the Government has adopted to expenditure control. Details of individual decisions are contained in the Measures section of Statement No 3; additional information will be provided, as appropriate, by the relevant Ministers. The Prime Minister will also be making a detailed statement on Public Service staffing matters in the next few weeks. SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE I have already outlined our major initiatives in this area. I stress once again: the Government has a commendable record of directing assistance to those in greatest need. Over the term of the Hawke Government there have been significant increases in the real value of pensions and benefits, and large gains in assistance provided for children in low income families. This Budget continues the Government's focus on improving benefits for those in need, on removing anomalies and attacking fraud. In addition to the measures I have already announced, action is to be taken to prevent some people qualifying for dual benefits. From 1 November 1986, where a newly eligible war or defence widow pensioner is also eligible for a social security pension, the maximum level of the social security pension will be frozen at $60.05 a week. I mentioned earlier that some benefits to the most needy in the community were to be increased. To assist pensioners and low income families with children, there will be a $1 a week increase in the additional pension and benefit per child and a $1 a week increase in the rate of the Family Income Supplement from November 1986. In recognition of the difficulties and additional costs facing disabled people who undertake employment or vocational training, the mobility allowance will increase to $11 a week from November this year. The handicapped child's allowance will increase by $7 per month to $92 per month from November 1986. And also from November, the orphan's pension will increase by $4.30 to $60 per month. A clear need has been established for the Government to provide additional income support for 16 and 17 year olds who are the victims of abuse within their own families or cannot live at home. Consequently, a Young Homeless Allowance of $23.28 a week has been introduced to supplement the income these young people receive from education allowances or unemployment benefits. Expenditure in 1986-87 for that purpose is estimated to be about $9 million. HEALTH When dealing earlier with the Government's major proposals in the health portfolio, I stressed that we were adamant that health funding must be kept within reasonable bounds. Consequently, in addition to those other measures, we will investigate the payment of medical benefits which are growing at above average rates and review mechanisms for further restraining growth in health costs. The Isolated Patient Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme will be transferred to the States. Extra funding of $11 million this year and $22 million in a full year will be provided to the States and Territories to enable them to provide more effective arrangements. Funding has been increased in a number of important areas in the health portfolio. These include health promotion, public health, hepatitis B vaccinations, medical research, family planning and assistance to diabetics. EDUCATION I have already mentioned the Government's intention to impose an administration charge on higher education students. In addition, the overseas student charge currently applicable to university and CAE students will be extended to secondary, TAFE and other previously exempt higher education students from overseas. Together with increases in existing charges, this extension will yield $7.3 million, offsetting the costs of providing education to overseas students in Australia. An anomaly exists in current arrangements whereby some social security beneficiaries can receive both student allowances and pensions or benefits. This is to be removed for new entrants from the 1987 academic year, saving $4 million. A special payment of $15 per week will instead be made to invalid and sole parent pensioners who are also students to encourage their education and later employment prospects. LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT There has been a significant re-ordering of priorities within this function and, overall, a real cut in spending. Flowing from last year's decision to implement the Priority One program, expenditure on job training programs will increase by $67 million, including an increased allocation of $33 million for the Australian Traineeship System. This accords with the Government's intention that training and education opportunities available to our young people be significantly enhanced. Increased emphasis on training is to be complemented by reduced emphasis on Government job creation schemes. Consequently, outlays under the Community Employment Program will be reduced by $90 million to $200 million. The 2 per cent wage discount recently applied to wages is to be extended to former Commonwealth Government employees and Defence Force personnel receiving Government superannuation benefits. ABORIGINALS Assistance to Aboriginals will undergo a significant change in emphasis following the Government's endorsement of the general principles espoused in the Miller Report on Aboriginal Employment Training. The emphasis of existing programs will be changed from short-term job creation and welfare measures towards policies to establish long-term employment opportunities. Commonwealth expenditure directed towards Aboriginals will total $570 million in 1986-87. DEFENCE Real growth in defence spending has been cut to 1 per cent in 1986-87, a significant reduction on the 3.75 per cent allowed for in the Five Year Defence Program. Senator MacGibbon —Why do you not honour your commitments of 3.75 per cent? Senator WALSH —I am interested in that interjection by Senator MacGibbon because the Fraser Government throughout its period in office was committed to 7 1/2 per cent real growth in defence expenditure but averaged 2.2 per cent. Nevertheless, average real growth in defence spending under this Government remains greater than that under our predecessors. Recently the Government has begun the most thorough and comprehensive review of this country's defence priorities since the Second World War. In light of the Dibb Report and prevailing economic circumstances, the Government will now prepare a White Paper on Defence which will set down the development of Australia's defence capabilities well into the future. This report will reflect the need to maintain planning at achievable financial outcomes. Such a disciplined approach will ensure that essential changes can take place in equipment and force structure. CULTURE AND RECREATION The Special Broadcasting Service-an extravagance of the Fraser-Howard years-and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation are to be amalgamated, and their combined funding reduced by $16 million from last year's allocation. The specialised charter of the SBS will be preserved under the amalgamation. Gross savings from shared facilities, accommodation, equipment and administration in the amalgamated organisations should be about $2 million in 1986-87 and much greater in future years. We are also reducing the cost of administrative assistance to the arts. As a first step, the Australia Council's administrative expenses for 1986-87 are to be reduced by $1 million to allow increased support for the arts. A wide-ranging review of the Commonwealth's funding of museums is to be undertaken. The construction of the National Museum of Australia in Canberra will not proceed on the timetable previously conceived; its future will be considered following this review. INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE All production bounties other than those applying to fertilisers and shipbuilding are to be reduced by 20 per cent from tonight, saving $43 million. There will be a phased reduction in the shipbuilding bounty rate from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. The consumption subsidy for fertilisers will no longer apply to imported products and the savings will be reallocated to increase subsidy rates on locally manufactured phosphatic fertilisers. The ban on uranium exports to France has failed to serve its original purpose and was in fact bestowing a benefit by allowing France to contract elsewhere for uranium at lower prices. As the ban was exacting no penalty and the material is to be used solely for peaceful purposes, the Government has decided to resume uranium exports, saving the Budget $66 million. TRANSPORT Following the earlier announcement of a $50 million reduction in projected outlays under the Australian Land Transport Program, a further reduction of $24 million is to be made. This means that total roads funding will be maintained at $1250 million, the same nominal level this year as last. The Government announced in May that it intended to recoup $40 million in aviation expenditures by implementing a cost recovery plan. These savings are now to be expanded to $49 million. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION The cost of fulfilling Freedom of Information requests is currently estimated at some $14 million a year, compared with offsetting revenue of $60,000. While the Government remains firmly committed to the principles of Freedom of Information, it believes that a greater proportion of the costs should be borne by users of this service. Charges will be increased but free access will be maintained for enquiries relating to personal income maintenance documents; but lazy politicians and journalists will have to pay. NORTHERN TERRITORY ELECTRICITY COMMISSION The Commonwealth remains committed to sharing the cost of constructing Darwin's new power station but has informed the NT Government that it will be halving, as of tonight, assistance with operating costs reflecting in the main the lower costs of its oil feedstock. This will save $21 million this year. CHARGE FOR LOAN GUARANTEES Commonwealth business enterprises receive a significant interest rate benefit due to the fact that their borrowings are guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government. From 1986-87 an annual charge will be applied to borrowings by the Commonwealth's business enterprises which are guaranteed by the Commonwealth. This measure is expected to raise about $7 million in 1986-87. RECEIPTS Mr President, I have already indicated the major revenue measures in the Budget. I shall now give further details. The measures are more extensively described in Statement No 4 of Budget Paper No 1. MARGINAL INCOME TAX RATE CUTS Mr President, the fundamental cuts to marginal income tax rates that the Treasurer announced as the centrepiece of the Government's Tax Reform Package will proceed. The 60 cent rate will be cut to 49 cents, the 48 cent and 46 cent rates to 40 cents and the other marginal tax rates to 29 and 24 cents. These massive income tax cuts will produce a fairer and more efficient tax system, under which all Australian taxpayers will be better off. However, as I indicated earlier, the serious international economic predicament which Australia faces has required the deferral of the first stage of these tax cuts until 1 December this year, reducing the cost to revenue in 1986-87 from $2085 million to $1435 million. Legislation to give effect to the lower rates of tax, including those to apply from 1 July 1987, will be introduced by the Treasurer tonight. These reductions are only possible because of the Government's moves to eliminate the inequities and abuses of our tax system which have persisted for so long and because of our demonstrated ability to restrain expenditures. They are an integral part of our overall program to establish the foundations for Australia's future economic growth and prosperity. SALES TAX To reduce the heavy tax discrimination against beer and spirits drinkers in favour of wine, the rate of sales tax on alcoholic wine and cider is to be increased from 10 per cent to the standard sales tax rate of 20 per cent from tonight. This is expected to increase revenue by $47 million in 1986-87. At present carbonated soft drinks and mineral waters are subject to sales tax of 20 per cent while other non-alcoholic beverages are exempt. In order to reduce this discrimination, sales tax at 10 per cent will apply from tonight to packaged flavoured milk, previously exempt fruit juice products and non-alcoholic wine and cider. This measure will yield revenue of $60 million in 1986-87. From tonight the rate of sales tax is to increase from 20 to 30 per cent on luxury cars and station wagons. Senator Chaney —What is a luxury car? Senator WALSH —The ones that you drive, I expect. This will affect broadly those vehicles whose retail price exceeds the depreciation cost limit for income tax purposes-that is $29,646 in 1986-87. The revenue yield in 1986-87 is $28 million. Avoidance of sales tax occurs through the device of selling only the discs and tapes on which computer software is embodied and licensing the consumer to use the software itself; sales tax is then payable only on the value of the discs, which is a small fraction of the total price. The sales tax law is to be amended, with effect from midnight tonight, to ensure that the taxable sale value of the computer discs or tapes encompasses the software on them. The production of ``in-house'' software will not be affected by the change, nor will exports of software or business purchases of software which are exempted as an aid to manufacture. Expected revenue raised from this measure is $80 million in 1986-87. Finally in the sales tax area, the Government has decided to change, with effect from midnight tonight, the classification for sales tax purposes of a number of goods so as to reduce anomalies and inconsistencies. The areas affected include swimming pools, hand tools, photographic developing and bathroom fittings. Details are provided in Statement No 4. BANK ACCOUNT DEBITS TAX The Bank Account Debits Tax rates will be increased from 1 December 1986. The highest rate will increase from $1.50 to $2.00; other rates will increase by up to a half. Revenue will increase by $45 million in 1986-87. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS I announced earlier that excise on petrol and diesel will increase 3 cents per litre with effect from tonight. This will yield $625 million in 1986-87 and $715 million in a full year. The decline in international oil prices and consequent reduction in import parity prices had substantially reduced Government revenue from the taxation of petroleum products. Even with this measure, total Commonwealth revenue from the taxation of petroleum products will be little changed from 1985-86. A.C.T. TAXES The Commonwealth Grants Commission has found that the financial contribution from the Australian Capital Territory continues to be low relative to that in the States. In those circumstances it is considered fair that revenue raised in the A.C.T. be increased. The Minister for Territories and the Treasurer are releasing a separate statement detailing the measures to be taken, which include introduction of a land tax on business properties and increases in gambling taxes and stamp duties. PROVISIONAL TAX An anti-avoidance measure will be introduced to overcome arrangements whereby members of closely held partnerships or trusts have sought to avoid provisional tax by manipulating the distribution of income between partners or beneficiaries from one year to the next. This will raise revenue by $50 million in 1986-87. VALUATION OF NATURAL INCREASE IN LIVESTOCK The Economic and Rural Policy Statement of 15 April 1986 announced changes to stock valuation arrangements for animal stud breeders generally. As the tax deferral advantages associated with stock valuations are generally much greater for horse breeders, the Government has decided to restrict valuation changes to them, and then only in respect of service fees. Other animal breeders, such as sheep and cattle breeders, will not now be affected. A separate statement gives the details. COMPANY ACCOUNTING PERIODS A small number of companies receive substantial tax deferral benefits through adoption of an accounting year for tax purposes which finishes on a date earlier than 30 June. Relative to other companies, such companies are able to defer payment of tax for up to six months. To remove the tax deferral advantage, it is proposed to advance the due dates for payment of their quarterly instalments and assessments. This change, which affects only the timing of tax payments and not the size of tax liabilities, will be phased in over the three years starting 1986-87. Less than 5 per cent of all companies will be affected by the change, which is expected to yield about $220 million in 1986-87 and in each of the following two years. PAY OF DEFENCE FORCE RESERVE The Dibb Report on Australia's defence capability envisaged an enhanced role for the Defence Force Reserve. The Government has decided to reinstate full taxation exemption of the pay of Defence Force Reservists from 1 January 1987. At the same time the special reserve allowance will be discontinued as an offset. MEDICARE LEVY As I announced earlier, the Medicare levy will be increased from one per cent to 1 1/4 per cent, from 1 December 1986. The estimated gain to revenue is $175 million in 1986-87. Threshold levels are to be raised to ensure that low income earners continue not to pay the levy. BENEFICIARY REBATES The taxation rebates for people receiving unemployment, sickness or special benefits will be increased again this year to ensure that people wholly or mainly dependent on such benefits are not liable to tax. INCOME AVERAGING FOR SPORTSPERSONS AND PERFORMING ARTISTS From the 1986-87 income year, sportspersons and performing artists are to be eligible for income tax averaging provisions designed to smooth out tax liabilities on fluctuating incomes. Anomalies in the existing authors and inventors scheme are to be removed. PASSPORT FEES The validity period of Australian passports will be extended from 5 to 10 years and the fee increased from $30 to $60. MONETARY POLICY It is the Government's intention to shift some of the present burden from monetary policy. Lower interest rates would be compatible with stronger domestic economic activity and balance of payments adjustment provided other policies are taking more of the weight of that adjustment process. That is one reason why it has been so important to achieve substantial cuts in the Budget deficit and the public sector borrowing requirement in 1986-87. As I said earlier, total public sector gross borrowings are estimated to fall by over $2 1/2 billion this year. As a ratio to GDP, the gross PSBR will fall to about 4.4 per cent, compared with 6.0 per cent in 1985-86 and a peak of 8.1 per cent in 1983-84. Treasury Bond Tenders in 1986-87 are expected to total around $3 billion. In net terms there will be no new bond raisings. The whole program will be accounted for by the roll-over of maturing debt. The gross program compares with $5.7 billion in 1985-86 and a peak of $9.7 billion in 1983-84. Consistent with this reduced program, the Treasury is announcing tonight details of the next Bond Tender for an amount of $400 million. Last year's move to a more even spread of tenders over the year was well received. A similar schedule is planned for this year. These measures will help to ease pressures on domestic financial markets and to lower interest rates. Actual interest rate movements will depend also on what happens to overseas interest rates and to inflationary and exchange rate expectations. In assessing the appropriateness of monetary policy, we will continue to review a wide range of current and prospective financial and general economic indicators. The Government's basic objective for monetary policy is for it to play its role in full support of other policies. We will maintain a firm monetary policy, consistent with the need to reduce inflation and to finance a current account deficit which is likely to remain large in 1986-87. CONCLUSION Mr President, in conclusion I wish to return to the main theme of tonight's Budget. I have made it clear that our prime concern was to set in place the pre-conditions for a turnaround in the current account deficit. Already there is clear evidence that the underlying forces are working as expected. Last financial year there was a 7.4 per cent increase in the volume of Australia's exports. Import volumes declined quite sharply-in the first half of 1986 they fell at an annual rate of more than 10 per cent. This is the beginning of the necessary structural adjustments which I have described-the switching to new products and activities. But this welcome improvement in export volumes and reduction in import volumes were over-shadowed by the big falls in world commodity prices. As quickly as we lifted export volumes, export prices fell. And in the shorter term, while we still maintain our heavy dependence on primary exports, our problem with commodity prices is not going to go away. Large falls in import volumes are in prospect this financial year, and further export growth is expected. But once again we must expect those positive outcomes to be masked by poor prices. As a result, on present indications, little change is expected in our current account deficit as a percentage of GDP for 1986-87 as a whole. For seasonal and other reasons, we expect a number of large monthly deficits over the remainder of this calendar year. Looking further ahead, the fundamental adjustments now underway in the economy should help to achieve substantial reductions beyond 1986-87. Mr President, when this Government was elected to office in March 1983 we inherited from our Coalition predecessors a massively debilitated economy. We faced a Budget deficit of unprecedented magnitude, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and the first negative growth in 30 years. Over the past three and a half years, with absolute determination and the co-operation of the Australian people, we have overcome these legacies. With historic levels of economic and employment growth and our sweeping reforms to the financial and taxation systems, our record of achievement is an enviable one. Now there are new challenges to overcome. The sudden collapse in the prices of our exports and the resulting loss of national income has forced a range of essential adjustments on the nation. The 1986-87 Budget which I have presented tonight rings the changes on a more robust, aggressive Australian economy. Earlier I said that by resolute action and some sacrifice all round we can face and defeat any problem. This means staying competitive with the rest of the world and trading out of our difficulties. This is the only path to higher growth, real independence and greater prosperity. This will be this Budget's crowning achievement. I seek leave to move a motion in connection with the statement. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement and papers. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Presidential Gallery of Sir Magnus Cormack, a distinguished former senator for Victoria and a distinguished former President of the Senate. I am sure that all honourable senators join me in extending a most warm and friendly welcome to him on his return to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —I table the women's Budget program for 1986-87 and seek leave to move a motion relating thereto. Leave granted. Senator RYAN —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill gives effect to several Government decisions relating to the remuneration of Parliamentarians, Judges and certain other public office holders. The prime purpose is to put into effect the Government's decision not to accept the Remuneration Tribunal's recommendation of an 11.7 per cent increase in parliamentary salaries. In presenting its 1986 review, the Tribunal stated that since 1 July 1984 the salary level of senators and members has been some 11.7 per cent less than ordinarily it should have been. The anomaly arose in the context of the 1984 review when the Tribunal established an equitable base for other groups in its jurisdiction by granting an 11.7 per cent increase, but this increase was not given to members by the Tribunal because of submissions by the Government and other parties. The same situation occurred in 1985 when the Tribunal drew attention to the anomaly but did not act in view of submissions by the Government and the opposition parties. In 1986 the Tribunal noted similar submissions from the Government and the parties, but determined an 11.7 per cent increase on the basis of what the Tribunal saw as compliance with its statutory obligation and fairness and equity. The Government announced, on 1 July, its intention not to accept the increase. While we recognise that parliamentary salaries are subject to a considerable anomaly and that in some cases this may be placing some strain on the resources of individual members, we have agreed that parliamentarians must, in the current economic climate, forgo any recommended increase in salary above national wage case increases. This Act therefore amends Tribunal Determinations 7 and 8, relating to additional salary for parliamentary office holders and basic salary of Senators and Members, so that existing salaries are increased only by the outcome of the recent national wage case. The basic salary of a member will then be $45 543; had the Tribunal's determination remained in force it would have been $50 871. As Remuneration Tribunal determinations come into effect on the date specified by the Tribunal, which in this case was 1 July 1986, the Act also allows for the alteration to the determinations to be effected retrospectively. The increased salary which has been paid to members since 1 July will therefore be required to be repaid and appropriate arrangements will be put in place. Because ministerial salaries are fixed by Government decision, Ministers have not received any payment by way of the anomaly element. The Bill also withdraws any entitlement to an 11.7 per cent increase in parliamentary superannuation benefits. Part III of the Bill amends the Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act to give effect to Tribunal recommendations regarding the salary and allowances of judges and members of the Interstate Commission. It provides for salaries to be increased by national wage case decisions only; allowances are to be adjusted in line with cost of living increases. The opportunity has been taken in Part IV of the Bill to alter the mechanism for increasing the annual appropriation for ministerial salaries under the Ministers of State Act so as to avoid continual alterations to the Act. To remove the need for recurrent legislative amendment, it is proposed to amend the Ministers of State Act to provide that in future the limit should be fixed by regulation under the Act. The limit will continue to be set on the basis of the actual salaries payble to Ministers as decided by the Government following recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal. The regulations will of course be subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny and the same disallowance provisions as other regulations. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Senate adjourned at 8.48 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 181. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 168. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 141. Air Navigation (Charges) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 169. Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 183. Australian National Airlines Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 201. Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 161. Canberra College of Advanced Education Act-Statute-No. 59-Election of Graduate Member of Council 1986. Companies Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 136, 152. Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 149. Companies (Acquisition of Shares-Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 146. Companies (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 145. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 154. Customs Act- Notice 1986 No. 5-Specified rate in respect to the diesel fuel rebate, dated 12 June 1986. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 144, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180. Dairy Produce Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 166. Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act 1986-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 167. Departure Tax Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 170, 171. Defence Act- Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Determinations 1986 Nos 2, 3, 4, 5, dated 14 July 1986. Determinations 1986- No. 30-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and others. No. 31-District Allowance and others. No. 32-Outfit Allowance for Special Appointments. No. 33-Overseas Living Out Allowance and Supplementary Living Allowance. No. 34-Charge for Excess Water. No. 35-Antarctic Allowance. No. 36-Salary and Allowances of the Vice Chief of the Defence Force. No. 37-Charge for Rations and Quarters. No. 38-Salary of Permanent Force Members and others. No. 39-Travelling Allowance and others. No. 40-Overseas Living Out Allowance and others. No. 41-Trainee's Dependant Allowance. No. 42-Table Money (Revocation) and Entertainment Allowance (Revocation) No. 43-Outfit Allowance and Outfit Allowance in Lieu of Issues of Uniforms. No. 44-Travelling Allowance and others. No. 45-Bounty Payable to Members of the Emergency Reserve. No. 46-Overseas Living Out Allowance and others. No. 47-Post Allowance. No. 48-Overseas Living Out Allowance and others. Director of Public Prosecutions Act-Direction under sub-section 8 (1), dated 13 June 1986. Dried Fruits Export Charges Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 137. Excise Act- Notice 1986 No. 7-Specified rate in respect to the diesel fuel rebate, dated 12 June 1986. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 173. Family Law Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 140. Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 193. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 157. Fisheries Act-Fisheries Notices- No. 169-Revocation of Fisheries Notice No. 157, dated 2 June 1986. No. 170-Prohibition relating to the taking of Southern Bluefin Tuna, dated 12 June 1986. Futures Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 150. Futures Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 151. Grape Research Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 162. Grape Research Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 163. Health Insurance Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 156, 195. Statements (3) of Particulars of Ministerial determinations authorised under section 106AA, dated 17 July 1986, 18 July 1986 and 24 July 1986. Health Insurance Commission Act-Direction under sub-section 8j (1), dated 14 July 1986. Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 159. International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 184. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (5) by the Minister describing lands acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Lighthouses Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 179. Live-stock Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 205. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 204. Meat Chicken Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 186. Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1986- No. 1-Meat Inspection (New South Wales) (Amendment). No. 2-Meat Inspection (Australian Capital Territory) (Amendment). National Companies and Securities Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 153. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 194. National Measurement Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 172. Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Marine Orders 1986- No. 5-Part 46-(Off-shore Supply Vessels). No. 6-Part 47-(Off-shore Industry Mobile Units). No. 7-Part 13-(Ship Stability and Subdivision) (Amendment). No. 8-Part 15-(Ship Fire Protection, Fire Detection and Fire Extinction) (Amendment). No. 9-Part 17-(Construction, Equipment and Operations-Chemical Tankers and Gas Carriers). No. 10-Part 25-(Equipment-Live-saving) (Amendment). No. 11-Part 26-(Equipment-Communication) (Amendment). Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 182. Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 189. Postal Services Act-By-laws 1986- Postal Amendment No. 2. Postal Staff Amendment No. 1. Postal Staff (Salaries) Amendment No. 1. Poultry Industry Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 142. Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act-Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Regulations-Marine Orders 1986-Part 92-(Powers of Intervention-Noxious Substances). Public Service Act- Determinations 1986 Nos 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 155, 187. Radiocommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 197. Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 198. Radiocommunications (Temporary Permit Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 199. Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 129, 200. Remuneration Tribunals Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 138, 158. Remuneration Tribunal-Determinations 1986- No. 5-Chairman, Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry and others, dated 23 May 1986. No. 16-Chief Executive Officer, Federal Airports Corporation and others, dated 1 July 1986. No. 17-Review of Material Relating to the Entry of Suspected War Criminals into Australia and others, dated 25 July 1986. Rural Industries Research Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 143. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations 1986, made under the following Ordinances- City Area Leases, dated 30 June 1986. Real Property, dated 30 June 1986. Unit Titles, dated 30 June 1986. Ordinances 1986- No. 16-City Area Leases (Amendment). No. 17-Leases (Special Purposes) (Amendment). No. 18-Married Persons' Property. No. 19-Imperial Acts (Substituted Provisions). No. 20-City Area Leases (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 21-Unit Titles (Amendment). No. 22-Real Property (Amendment). No. 23-Consumer Affairs (Amendment). No. 24-Milk Authority (Amendment). No. 25-Remand Centres (Amendment). No. 26-Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment). No. 27-Crimes (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 28-Criminal Injuries Compensation (Amendment). No. 29-Credit (Amendment). No. 30-Credit (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 31-Sex Discrimination (Miscellaneous Amendments). No. 32-Poisons and Narcotic Drugs (Amendment). No. 33-Magistrates Court (Amendment). No. 34-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 35-Games, Wagers and Betting-houses (Amendment). No. 36-Gaming and Betting (Amendment). Regulations 1986- No. 5-(Machinery Ordinance). No. 6-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). No. 7-(Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance). No. 8-(Machinery Ordinance). No. 9-(Scaffolding and Lifts Ordinance). Securities Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 148. Securities Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 147. Sex Discrimination Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 191, 192, 196. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 11 June 1986 and 28 July 1986. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 139, 188. Taxation Boards of Review (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 190. Telecommunications Act-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendments Nos 67, 68, 69. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendments Nos 43, 44. Telecommunications (General) Amendment No. 49. Trade Union Training Authority Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 203. Veterans' Entitlements Act- Statements (5) by the Minister under sub-sections 29 (1), 90 (1), 91 (1), 105 (1) and 117 (1), dated 22 May 1986. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 202. Wheat Tax Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 185. Wine Grapes Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 164. Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 165. Wool Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 160. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Air Navigation Amendment Act 1986-Sections 5, 6 and 7-5 August 1986 (Gazette No. S 364, 25 July 1986). Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Act 1984-Paragraph 4 (1) (a) and section 10-1 July 1986 (Gazette No. S 312, 30 June 1986). Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Act 1986-1 July 1986 (Gazette No. S 314, 30 June 1986). Companies Amendment Act 1985-Sections 3 to 12 (inclusive)-30 June 1986 (Gazette No. S 283, 13 June 1986). Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1985-Section 77-21 July 1986 (Gazette No. S 350, 18 July 1986). Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-Amendments of Part VIII aa made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985-30 June 1986 (Gazette No. S 313, 30 June 1986). Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Act 1986-18 July 1986 (Gazette No. S 342, 17 July 1986). Futures Industry Act 1986-1 July 1986 (Gazette No. S 306, 30 June 1986). Health Legislation Amendment Act 1986-Sub-section 4 (3) and sections 6, 7, 51 and 52-1 August 1986 (Gazette No. S 377, 31 July 1986). Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984-Section 10-1 July 1986 (Gazette No. S 316, 30 June 1986). Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Act 1985-Sections 14, 18, 21, 22, sub-sections 30 (1) to (7) (inclusive) and section 32-1 July 1986 (Gazette No. S 310, 30 June 1986). Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946-Amendments made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985- 1 July 1986 (Gazette No. S 311, 30 June 1986). Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985-See-Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904; and Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946. Wheat Marketing Amendment Act 1986-All provisions other than Part I, section 30 and Parts III, IV and VI-1 August 1986 (Gazette No. S 369, 29 July 1986). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 320) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 May 1985: Is the Government in favour of a recent call by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to disallow continuing expenses incurred in primary production, including forestry, as a tax deduction, unless offset against income earned from primary production activities; if so, what effect would such a decision have on private plantation forestry and private forest management in Australia. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: My 19 September 1985 Statement on Tax Reform included a farm loss quarantining measure which was to limit the ability of taxpayers to offset immediately losses incurred in primary production activities against income from other sources. The measure was designed to deal with tax sheltering activity in primary production. It was recognised that the quarantining measure would have some effect on some existing primary production investments, particularly those with long lead times, such as private plantation forestry. The depressed state of primary production has exacerbated those potential effects, causing the measure to have a greater than anticipated impact on genuine primary producers. In light of these considerations, the Government decided not to proceed with quarantining, but to approach the problem of tax sheltering in the primary production area with more closely targetted remedies. To this end the Government has decided to review the operation of relevant legislative provisions. This will include: the determination of what is a genuine primary production business as opposed to a hobby farm; the distinction between business-related primary production expenditure as opposed to private expenditure; and the question of the appropriate rate of write-off of capital expenditures, operating expenses and repayments of annual expenses so that they more closely equate with the economic lives of the assests. In addition, the Government has announced changes to the trading stock valuation arrangements for income tax purposes of animals acquired by natural increase by stud operators in respect of their stud operations. (Question No. 489) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) Are the salaries, paid by the Commonwealth to its Physio and Occupational Therapists and Speech Pathologists, the lowest in Australia. (2) What was the turnover in the Therapist professions employed by the Commonwealth in 1984. (3) Is there a shortage, in Australia, of qualified Therapist professionals; if so, do advertised vacancies for Commonwealth employment not attract suitable applicants. (4) What is the percentage of vacant Therapist positions in Commonwealth employment. (5) Has the demand for Therapist services increased; if so, are Therapists, employed by the Commonwealth, suffering excessive workload pressures. (6) What was the cost in 1984 of providing private Physio Therapy services to entitled veterans. (7) How much would it cost the Commonwealth to upgrade the Therapist profession to rectify the problems referred to above. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. Following a joint review of therapist work by the Public Service Board and the Professional Officers' Association, a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 23 December 1985 awarded an alignment of APS Therapist levels 1-4 with levels 1-4 in the Science group. Significant pay increases resulted from this decision. (2) There has been substantial turnover in therapist positions but to obtain precise details would require significant expenditure of resources. Increased salaries for this group should reduce therapist wastage in future. (3) There is a recognised shortage of therapists at present. However, it is envisaged that this will only be a problem in the short-term as the following measures have been undertaken to alleviate the situation: The Minister for Education has, following recommendations from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, approved increased places in health science courses in a number of States. For example, in New South Wales, over 100 new enrolments are being funded at the Cumberland College of Health Sciences and increases have been approved for health science courses at the Lincoln Institute of Health Services in Victoria. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, under its occupational share system, has in 1985/86 scheduled to allow for migration of 100 physiotherapists, 50 occupational theraspist and 50 speech pathologists. Additionally, therapists should be permitted entry into Australia through the Employer Nomination Scheme. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations recently invited the States to participate in refresher courses for therapists. It is understood that New South Wales took up this invitation and 45 therapists will shortly undertake a 12-week refresher course at Cumberland College. (4) The major Commonwealth employers of therapists (Department of Veterans' Affairs and Community Services, and the ACT Health Authority) currently have approximately 15% of therapists positions vacant. (5) Yes. But changed work practices and use of part-time employees and private practitioners have alleviated the workload situation in the short term. Measures outlined above should improve the long term situation. (6) $10,060,409 in 1984/85. (7) Because the Commonwealth capacity to influence either conditions of employment or the size and distribution of the therapist workforce is limited, it is not possible to accurately assess the cost of upgrading the profession to rectify the problems raised by the honourable senator. However, it is known that the budget for the refresher course to be run by Cumberland College for the 45 therapists is in the order of $155,000. (Question No. 594) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to (1) and (2) above. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) by the Department-$6,000 (Secretary), $7,200 (Tourist Commissioner), $6,000 (Canberra Development Board-non-statutory body). (b) By each statutory authority for which the Minister has responsibility: ACT Architects Board...Nil ACT Bushfire Council...Nil ACT Credit Tribunal...Nil ACT Electricity Authority...$7,000 ACT Fire Brigade...Nil ACT Fire Brigade Appeal Board...Nil ACT Fire Brigade Promotions Appeal Tribunal...Nil ACT Gaming and Liquor Authority...$5,590 Agents Board of the ACT...Nil Air Pollution Advisory Committee...Nil Australian Federal Police Liaison Advisory Committee...Nil Building and Construction Industry-Long Service Leave Board...$500 Building Review Committee...Nil Building Standards Committee...Nil Canberra Commercial Development Authority (abolished 27.2.86)...$6,000 Canberra National Memorials Committee...Nil Canberra Public Cemeteries Trust...Nil Canberra Retail Markets Trust...Nil Canberra Theatre Trust...$2,000 Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council...Nil Consumer Affairs Council of the ACT...Nil Design and Siting Review Committee...Nil Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island...Nil Milk Authority of the ACT...$2,000 National Capital Development Commission...$4,000 National Capital Planning Committee...Nil National Exhibition Centre Trust...$2,000 Parliament House Construction Authority...$5,500 Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board...Nil Surveyors Board of the ACT...Nil Water Pollution Advisory Committee...Nil Workmen's Compensation Supplementation Fund...Nil (2) (a) the Department: are covered in Finance Directions 13/1, 13/2 and Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14. (b) Statutory authorities for which the Minister has responsibility are: (The following includes only those statutory authorities which have a hospitality/entertainment account.) ACT Electricity Authority All proposed expenditure of this nature must be approved by an officer with the appropriate delegation, whose responsibility it is to scrutinise the nature of the expenditure and ensure that it is pertinent to the operations of the Authority. ACT Gaming and Liquor Authority Full acquittance and supporting documentation of expenditure incurred or to be incurred subject to approval in accordance with the Authority's Expenditure Authorities. Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board Amounts up to $100 may be spent by the Board's members and Registrar without prior discussion within a formal Board meeting. Expenditure expected to exceed $100 is to be notified to a Board meeting prior to the event. Canberra Commercial Development Authority Expenditure was subject to budgeted limits of reasonable expenditure on the Authority's business at the discretion of senior officers. Canberra Theatre Centre All official entertainiment is within the General Manager's approval and a report is submitted to the Trust every two months giving details of expenditure. Expenditure is required to be formally ratified by the Trust. Milk Authority of the ACT Expenditure is to be approved at Authority meetings and expenditure is restricted to the amount of budget. National Capital Development Commission Expenditure from the account is limited to providing hospitality to overseas visitors and official guests. The approval of the Secretary and Manager of the Commission is required in each instance. National Exhibition Centre Trust Expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account must be in the course of the normal business of the Trust, and approved by the General Manager and/or the Trust. Parliament House Construction Authority The Authority follows the guidelines for expenditure by officials on entertainment set out in Financial Circular 1981/6 issued on 22 April 1981. (3) The Department and the statutory authorities under the Minister's responsibility are complying with the monitoring provisions for entertainment expenses set out in Finance Circular 1985/18 so that when the rules governing the new tax provisions are settled, the necessary transfer of funds to revenue can occur. The cost of answering this question is estimated at $490.00. (Question No. 663) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 7 November 1985: (1) What systems apply in operating theatres to check that all items are accounted for and not included in the laundry bags. (2) Since July 1984 how many non-linen items have been found with linen sent to the Mitchell laundry for processing, and what items were they. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In respect of the two public hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory operated by the ACT Health Authority, Royal Canberra Hospital and Woden Valley Hospital, the procedures applying to the accounting and handling of all swabs and instruments used in operating theatres are those used in the New South Wales hospital system and described in the Standard Procedures, Technique for the Handling of Swabs, Sponges, Instruments etc., booklet issued by the Health Department of NSW. (2) Since July 1984 to April 1986, 3450 items have been found in linen bags received at the Authority's Central Linen Service at Mitchell. A separate record is not maintained by the Linen Service of items found in theatre linen bags. The items found in the bags included a large variety of different medical and non-medical items, for example, obstetric sets, oxygen masks, foreceps, syringes, thermometers, resuscitator mouth pieces, bottles of antiseptic solution, bed pans, kidney bowls and medicine glasses. In respect of non-medical items the variety included eating and drinking utensils, toys, pieces of glass and plastic, meal trays, rubber teats, tooth brushes, razors, combs and hair brushes, footwear, vases and sink plugs. The estimated cost of obtaining the information and preparing the answer to this question is $200. (Question No. 666) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 7 November 1985: (1) What input does the Federal Department of Aviation have over the security arrangements for staff screening operated by the individual airline companies, in view of the answers provided to Senator Jones in response to Questions on Notice 507, 508 and 509 (see Hansard, 5 November 1985, p. 1602). (2) Are those ``individual'' security programs, referred to by the Minister for Aviation in his previous reply adequate, in view of widespread and ever-increasing concern over the growing incidence of hijacking episodes. (3) Will the Federal Government consider, as a matter of considerable urgency, the possibility of upgrading its security measures to an extent whereby the Department of Aviation undertakes the security screening of each and every airport or airline on-ground or in-flight employee applicant. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Prerequisites for employment with airlines including security arrangements for staff screening remains a matter for the airlines. My Department is satisfied that airline management accepts a responsible attitude in this regard. (2) Airlines security programmes required by the Department are considered adequate. The programmes meet the requirements of the Australian Air Navigation Regulations, Air Navigation Orders and Annex 17 of the Chicago Convention of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Safeguarding International Civil Aviation Against Acts of Unlawful Interference). (3) Security procedures presently in place allow for upgraded measures if required. There are no plans for the Department to take over screening functions which are presently the responsibility of airlines. (Question No. 695) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: (1) Are 60 per cent of NASA's astronauts active duty military officers, that there are 5 such officers on the space shuttle Atlantis, and that secret military missions will account for up to 30 per cent of all shuttle flights in the next decade. (2) What functions do these secret shuttle missions serve, what role does the military play in them, and to what extent is our involvement connected, directly or indirectly to such a program. (3) Is Australia involved in any way, how are we involved and to what extent is our involvement connected, directly or indirectly to such a program. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Many astronauts employed by the US National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) are military officers who have been seconded to NASA but the exact percentage is not known. Nor is the number of military officers scheduled to be aboard every Atlantis shuttle mission known, but it might be expected to vary with the requirements of each mission. President Reagan is reported to have said in early 1985 that from early 1988 one third of all shuttle missions are to be used for military purposes, but present intentions are in doubt as a result of the loss of the shuttle vehicle Challenger in January 1986 and in view of proposals being developed for alternative launch vehicles. Military missions are not always secret and it remains to be seen how many will be classified in future. (2) and (3) We assume that shuttle flights with defence-related missions serve a variety of roles, mainly to do with the launch of satellites and with research and development. Shuttle crews and payload specialists help launch satellites from the payload bay and conduct experiments. As the shuttle program was suspended following the loss of the Challenger vehicle, there is no occasion for Australian involvement at present. Comment about the nature and extent of any future Australian involvement in programs to be supported by NASA's space shuttle would be speculative. I am not prepared to engage in such activity. (Question No. 706) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Aviation aware of the alarm that the decision to close a number of weather stations at airports around Australia has caused among pilots and passengers of light aircraft. (2) Can the Minister guarantee that pilots will continue to receive up to date briefings on local conditions when an office remote to Tasmania is interpreting data collected by automatic recording stations, given the decision to close the station at Launceston Airport by April 1986 and the Hobart Airport Station by January of 1989 which will deny the pilots of light aircraft the opportunity of face to face briefings from officers with an understanding of local conditions which are invaluable to pilots who lack sophisticated equipment and fly according to visual flight rules. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The matters raised in the honourable senator's question were covered in the Inquiry into Meteorological Services by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. The Committee's Report was tabled on 3 June 1986 and is being considered by the Government. (Question No. 710) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: (1) How many cases of failure to enrol, by Division and State, have been dealt with by the courts since 1 January 1985. (2) Does this represent an increase or decrease on the previous 5 years. (3) Has there been any change of policy in regard to dealing with failure to enrol cases, in particular those which go to court. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Electoral Commissioner has advised that between 1 January 1985 and 18 April 1986, no cases of failure to enrol were dealt with by the courts. (2) A decrease. (3) No. (Question No. 722) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: (1) Can the Minister for Aviation detail the areas where staffing cut-backs may occur following Department of Aviation plans to withdraw weather briefing staff from major Australian cities which could have serious implications for aircraft safety, particularly in cyclone prone areas where earlywarning weather services are essential. (2) Will service be maintained by the Bureau of Meteorology. (3) What guarantees are in place to ensure that there is no risk to aircraft safety as a result of changes in weather briefing responsibilities. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The matters raised in the honourable senator's question were covered in the Inquiry into Meteorological Services by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. The Committee's Report was tabled on 3 June 1986 and is being considered by the Government. (Question No. 723) Senator Vigor asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: (1) What steps have been taken to respond to repeated requests that there be held tri-partite discussions, involving all three tiers of government, with the goal of establishing long-term agreements about respective roles in the provision and funding of human services, and child-care in particular, and concluding binding contractual arrangements in view of the significant and growing participation of local government in the provision of human services, and child-care in particular. (2) Will the Minister for Community Services press for the inclusion of local government representatives on decision-making bodies determining priority areas for the extension of human services, and child-care in particular, rather than just having them on planning committees once the basic decisions have been made. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) A number of discussions have taken place regarding the respective roles of the different levels of government in the provision of children's services. These have stemmed from the growth in the Commonwealth/State co-operative program and the increasing involvement of local government as contributors to the development of services and as sponsors. This process is most advanced in Victoria. Following negotiations between my Department and the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) I met with the MAV in December 1985 and confirmed agreements on the operation of child care centres already approved under the sponsorship of Victorian local government authorities. It was also agreed that a consultative committee, comprising the MAV, my Department, the State Department of Community Services, the Victorian Trades Hall Council, the Australian Early Childhood Association, the Uniting Church of Australia and the Community Child Care Association of Victoria be established to advise my Department on matters that bear on operational costs of child care centres and the employment of qualified staff. The committee has also considered appropriate terms and conditions of recurrent grants between services and the Commonwealth. In May 1986, a second Victorian municipal umbrella organisation, the Metropolitan Municipal Association, joined the committee at their request. (2) Funds under the CSP are allocated on the basis of need; a process, which is referred to as a needs based planning approach. To assist in this process, planning committees have been established in each State and Territory to advise the Minister for Community Services on geographical areas where there is a high need for children's services, on the most appropriate service type for these areas and on a priority ranking for particular service types within high need areas. The committees' advice is based on members' general knowledge of and involvement in children's services, local area discussions and consultations, analysis of relevant statistics, and review of existing services. Membership of these committees in most States includes representatives of Commonwealth, State and local governments and community-based organisations. Care is taken to ensure the community-based representation includes service providers, service users and special needs groups. The introduction of the needs based planning approach, which replaced an earlier system based solely on submissions, does not preclude individual community groups from submitting funding applications to the Department's State offices. Final decisions in all cases are made by the Minister, taking into account all available information and advice on relative priorities of need and funds available for the CSP. As can be seen from the above description of the role of planning committees, their advice is given prior to decision. (Question No. 783) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) What is the 1985/86 budgetary appropriation for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Youth Bureau. (2) What is the- (a) number; (b) clerical classification; and (c) duties of persons employed in the Youth Bureau. (3) has any (a) dispersement of funds; and (b) material assistance been rendered to any non-Government organisation by the Youth Bureau if so, to whom, and in what form of assistance. (4) Is the ACT Youth Bureau funded by sources other than annual appropriation; if so, by what other means is the Bureau funded. (5) What are the principal activities of the ACT Youth Bureau during 1984/84. (6) What projects are to be undertaken in 1985/86. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: $ (1) (a) Salaries... 204,000 (b) Programs... 55,000 259,000 The Program Vote is a separate item within Departmental appropriation 620.3.04 and therefore clearly identifiable, but any remaining expenditure, e.g. office requisites, are included in general Branch appropriations. (2) (a) Eight (8) (b) + (c) Clerical Administrative, Class 10-Duties: Direct and control the operations and activities of the Youth Bureau; Provide policy advice on Youth related matters; Represent Department as required at National conferences and meetings; Co-ordinate youth related activities within the ACT. Clerical Administrative Class 9-Duties: Develop and oversight a program of research studies in the Youth Affairs field affecting the Department and the community; Direct or undertake more complex investigations of youth needs and determine Departmental policies and attitudes on these matters; Represent the Department as required at conferences and meetings with agencies, organisations and individuals in relation to work in the field; Co-ordinate Departmental and inter-departmental involvement as necessary. Clerical Administrative Class 8-Duties: Assist in the development of policies and programs affecting youth in the ACT; Direct or undertake Secretarial services to Committees as required; Advise on the allocation of grants for youth purposes; Provide a point of contact for young people and youth related organisations in the ACT and provide information on programs, services, funding of activities available etc; Assist in the preparation of Ministerial briefings. Clerical Administration Class 7-Duties: Undertake investigations and research associated with the formulation of policy on Youth Affairs; Assess needs in the Youth field and aid in the design of a research program; Contact research assistance and monitor consultancies; Generate and produce information and data on projects; Evaluate programs and projects within the Bureau; Review legislation as necessary. Clerical Administration Class 6-Duties: Administer an information service including the production and distribution of pamphlets, publications, etc; Maintain a register of Youth services in the ACT; Service committees and provide relevant information as required; Process applications for grants and undertake administration of grants; Liaise with community organisations and youth groups as necessary; Oversight the provision of administrative services for the Bureau. Clerical Assistant Grade 4-Duties: Maintain records for the Youth Bureau; Answer general enquiries on the functions of the Bureau; Assist in the preparation and distribution of documents; Assist officers within the Bureau as required; Provide general clerical assistance to the area. Clerical Assistant Grade 3-Duties: Provide receptionist/secretarial services for the Bureau; Provide advice and information to persons approaching the Bureau; when necessary schedule appointments; Undertake more difficult searches of records to provide information for specific enquiries. Clerical Assistant Grade 2-Duties: Perform courier duties for the Bureau and distribute papers as required; Provide general clerical assistance; Answer routine enquiries; Provide keyboard/typing services support to the Bureau as required. (3) (a) Yes. 1984/85 Departmental Support for IYY Activities $ ACT Youth Refuge Association... 50.00 ACT IYY Co-ordinating Committee... 7590.00 The Foundry-``Camp for Kids''... 4549.00 IYY Youth Arts Festival... 5000.00 17189.00 1985-86 General Programs $ Civic Youth Centre-Interim Management Committee... 1800.00 Short Cuts youth telephone and shopfront information service... 8120.82 ACT Workers With Youth Network, Youth Worker Training... 2420.00 12340.00 Departmental Support for IYY Activities ACT Youth Forum, Holiday Program... 1090.00 The Foundry ``Camp for Kids'' project... 450.00 Norfolk Island... 853.00 Canberra Youth Refuge... 2000.00 4393.00 A distinction must be drawn between the Bureau's support for IYY from Departmental appropriations and the separate activities of the ACT IYY Co-ordinating Committee funded with a grant from the Community Development Fund. Funds spent from the Departmental appropriation went through ordinary Commonwealth approval procedures and the grants are subject to terms and conditions similar to those applying to other Community grants. The ACT IYY Co-ordinating Committee will be making a report by June 1986 and will acquit its funding in that report. (b) Yes. As part of the ordinary operations of the ACT Youth Bureau, in accordance with its charter, many youth and community organisations have received advice and general assistance. Particular assistance has been given with preparation of submissions for the Youth and Community category of the Community Development Fund. Material support in the form of minute taking, typing and photocopying has been given to International Youth Year Co-ordinating Committee for the period of its appointment. Pending the creation of a Secretariat for the ACT International Year of Peace Consultative Committee, the Bureau has provided some secretariat services to the Committee. The Bureau is also associated with the ACT Workers With Youth Network in sponsoring the Short Cuts Information Service and has provided the service with accommodation, furniture, minor equipment and office support. (4) No. But see the answer to Question 3 which explains the ACT funding of IYY. (5) The ACT Youth Bureau was established by the Government in October 1984. The decision to establish the Bureau arose from the findings of a number of reports commissioned by the Commonwealth Government in recent years and the fact that similar Bureaus have been established by all of the State and Territorial Governments. The charter agreed to by the Government and given to the Bureau upon its establishment was: Greater consideration of the needs of young people in the development of Government policies for the ACT; and Better co-ordination of Government programs affecting youth in the ACT. In pursuing this charter projects undertaken by the ACT Youth Bureau in 1984/85 were primarily intended to: Better resource young people for participation in the community; Provide information to both young people and the community about youth services and programs; and Co-ordinate youth affairs in the Government and non-government sectors as the ACT moves towards self-government. Activities undertaken by the Bureau included: Developing a communications network between young people and the Government; Liaison with other youth affairs bodies, providing a contact point and referral service for youth workers and organisations; Acting as a source of policy advice to the Minister in relation to the needs of young people; Co-ordinating Government youth programs within the ACT; Co-ordinating funding arrangements for the non-government youth sector including servicing the Youth and Community Advisory Committee which advises the ACT House of Assembly on grants from the ACT Community Development Fund; Building up a research and information capacity to assist all agencies dealing with young people; Representing the ACT at interstate youth affairs meetings involving the Commonwealth/State or Territory Governments and the voluntary sector; and During late 1984 and the whole of 1985 providing a secretariat for the ACT IYY Co-ordinating Committee; and sponsoring and assisting Departmental IYY activities. In addition the Bureau provides input into the planning processes for facilities for young people. (6) The Bureau is continuing to carry out the charter provided to it by the Government as outlined in paragraph 5 above. In particular in 1985/86 it will be focusing on: Development, in association with the ACT Workers With Youth Network, of ``Short Cuts'', a central and regional information service designed to act as a first stop information service on all topics relevant to young people in the ACT; Continuing development of plans and management structures for the Civic, Tuggeranong and Belconnen Youth Centres, requiring community involvement and policy formulation; Sponsorship through the Commonwealth Youth Services Development Program of neighbourhood youth workers to service the ACT's regional areas and assist young people with access to management and enterprise skills; and Development of a community service progam for young people called IMPACT (Improve the ACT) to enhance enterprise skills; and Provision and establishment of information registers, service directories and a recreation directory for youth organisations and young people in the government and non-government sectors. The cost of answering this question is estimated at $400.00. (Question No. 795) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Has the Department of Defence conducted a study of Australian ports to determine which ones are capable now of providing facilities for visits by nuclear powered and/or armed ships, and which ports would be capable of providing such facilities in the near future with limited upgrading. (2) If such a study has been carried out, which ports are considered to be capable now of handling such vessels, and which are considered capable of handling the vessels with limited upgrading. (3) What facilities would be available in the event of an accident, such as fire, on any such vessel in an Australian port, or in Australian territorial waters in all cases. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for De- fence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) has, however, made assessments of the suit- ability for use by nuclear powered warships of particular berths and anchorages in various Australian ports. Visits by warships that may be armed with nuclear weapons are permitted under the same general terms and conditions as those that apply to visits by warships belonging to the governments of non-nuclear weapons states. (2) Albany, Brisbane, Darwin, Fremantle (Gage Roads), HMAS Stirling, Hobart, Jervis Bay and Melbourne all contain berths and/or anchorages assessed by the AAEC as suitable for NPW visits. (3) Safety plans for accidents to the reactors of visiting NPWs vary in accordance with local conditions and administrative arrangements. However, they generally include arrangements for routine and emergency radiation monitoring and protection, coordination of emergency services, evacuation, public information and the removal of the vessel to a remote safe location. Arrangements for all other types of warship accidents, including nuclear weapon accidents, are covered in the general emergency plans for harbour accidents which exist for every Australian port. These plans utilise the resources of the port emergency services, including fire brigades, police and health agencies, along with State, Territory and Commonwealth support as appropriate. Allied warships do not normally operate in Australian territorial waters except in transit to and from visits to Australian ports. (Question No. 798) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: Were telephone directories for Brisbane and the Gold Coast not available at the Burleigh Heads Telecom Business Office in January 1986; if so: (a) does Telecom regard this state of affairs to be satisfactory; (b) why did this occur; and (c) were these directories available at any other locations, and if so, could some of those directories have been forwarded to the Gold Coast area. 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: Telecom regrets that Brisbane White Pages directories have not been readily available since January 1986 due to supply problems brought about by a higher demand for books than had been estimated. These estimates were based on the delivery of the required number of copies to each householder and business premises, irres-ective of whether they were telephone subscribers or non-subscribers. An additional quantity was also available for use by others as requested. Demand for extra Brisbane directories after this initial distribution was expected to be lower than the previous year when non-subscribers were required to approach Telecom Business Offices or Post Offices for a copy. The changed procedure was adopted on the basis of convenience to all customers and as being more economical to achieve. Despite the revised arrangements, demand continued at a higher level than expected and the shortage will continue until the new directory is distributed in August this year. Reprinting of the current Brisbane directory could not be considered a viable option at this stage because: The Directory Assistance Service holds up-to-date telephone number information; Reprints would hold the same information as the original and would not include the many amendments which occur weekly; The cost for small quantities of printed material is high. Gold Coast directories were restricted briefly due to high demand over the holiday period but are now freely available. A new Gold Coast directory is scheduled for issue in June this year. (Question No. 1084) Senator Vigor asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) What additional monitoring of imports of contaminated products, materials or foods are Customs personnel undertaking as a result of the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown. (2) Have importers been advised of additional requirements if they are bringing products from regions affected by the nuclear fallout from the meltdown. (3) Is there any additional systematic testing of foodstuffs for radioactive iodine and low-energy beta radioactivity. Senator Button —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) The Government has introduced a range of measures to assess radiation levels in foodstuffs imported from countries where evidence is to hand that particular countries have been affected by radioactive fallout from the reactor failure. These measures will minimise radioactive products entering the food chain in Australia. No measures have been taken in regard to shipments of goods other than foodstuffs as available evidence indicates such shipments pose no significant health risk. Potentially affected countries have been categorised into two risk groups: List 1 (lower risk) countries comprise: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom; and List 2 (higher risk) countries comprise: Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, USSR and Yugoslavia. Imports of foods and beverages for human consumption will be assessed for radioactivity as follows: List 1 Countries: local assessment will be undertaken on randomly selected consignments List 2 Countries: importers should present an approved overseas radioactivity certificate; consignments covered by overseas certificates will be randomly sampled (at a higher level than for checks of List 1 countries) to locally verify stated radioactivity levels; and where no overseas certificate is presented the consignments will be checked locally. Consignments will not be released without Commonwealth Health approval if the radioactive concentration of caesium 137 exceeds 100 becquerels per kilogram of product. (2) Following the Government's initial press release on 3 July 1986, the Australian Customs Service announced detailed arrangements to the importing community by Australian Customs Notice 86/179 dated 10 July 1986. (3) Commonwealth Health has advised that the reasons why Australia and other members of the international community have based assessments on caesium 137 rather than on Iodine 131 or low energy beta radiation sources include: The short radiological half life of Iodine 131 (approximately 8 days) makes this isotope unsuitable for monitoring potential intermediate and longer term effects of deposition from Chernobyl. Any Iodine 131 which would have been present in affected products would have effectively decayed in the period since the reactor failure. Beta emissions are very difficult to measure at the low concentrations experienced in the present case; Caesium 137 is one of the significant residual isotopes with an appropriate half life (approximately 30 years). Being a gamma emitting isotope, caesium 137 can be readily measured with a high degree of accuracy; and Experience of fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950's and 1960's gives confidence in the use of caesium 137 as an indication of the residual spectrum of intermediate (12 month to 50 year) half life products, which includes many low energy beta radiation sources. (Question No. 808) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspices of the Minister's Department. (2) What are the names of these authorities. (3) What appeal mechanisms, if any, exist for the general public to lodge a complaint against these authorities. (4) If it is proved that any member of staff of any of these authorities is guilty of incompetence, what action, if any, could be taken by a member of the public to sue the authority for compensation; if it is not possible to sue the authority, why is that the case. (5) How many cases concerning these authorities are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and what is the delay at present between the listing of a case and its hearing before the Tribunal. (6) If any statutory authority under the Minister's Department cannot be sued, will the Minister consider amending the relevant legislation to make this possible. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) There are two authorities within the Minister's portfolio, namely the Australian Trade Union Training Authority (TUTA) and the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC). The staff of both organisations make decisions that could affect members of the public. There are other offices, organisations, tribunals and advisory bodies within the Minister's portfolio which are constituted pursuant to statute but which do not come within the scope of the generally accepted meaning of a statutory authority. (3) Neither the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975 nor the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1985 provide appeal mechanisms. However, the normal appeal mechanisms provided by the Ombudsman Act 1976, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 are available in respect of these authorities. In addition, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal may review decisions taken under Section 63 (4) of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act relating to the dissemination or publication of information. (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 the answer to part (2) of this question is statutorily protected against general liability in tort. Indeed, in each case the legislation expressly provides that, as a body corporate, the authority may be sued in its corporate name. (5) There are no cases before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (6) Not applicable. (Question No. 824) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, 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 Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Two. (2) The Health Insurance Commission and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission. (3) Review of administrative decisions made by both of the above authorities (other than those relating to their commercial activities) is obtainable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Complaints can also be made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976. (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. None of the authorities listed in answer to part (1) of this question is statutorily protected against general liability in tort. (5) None. (6) See 4. (Question No. 889) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) What broadcasting expertise do the members of the Task Force into Equalisation of Commercial Television have. (2) What resources and advice has the Department of Communications been able to make available to the Task Force. (3) What criteria has the Task Force adopted in determining whom to invite to make written or oral submissions. (4) Whom has the Task Force so far invited to make submissions and when, where and in what form were these submissions made. (5) Has a written record been kept of the Task Force's proceedings, particularly when submissions have been oral. (6) Will any records or documents stemming from the work of the Task Force be made public. (7) Will the Media and Communications Council be invited to make any submissions on broadcasting to the Task Force. Senator Walsh —The following answer to the honourable senator's question has been supplied by the Minister for Communications: (1) The former members of the Task Force are professional officers of the Commonwealth Public Service and obviously are not broadcasting practitioners. They, however, studied and discussed various reports and papers on the broadcasting industry and had face to face discussions with senior people from that industry. (2) The Task Force had access to the advice of the Department of Communications on any matter. The Department also provided staff for a small secretariat to independently service the Task Force; that secretariat had access to and the use of the full range of services available to other areas of the Department. (3) The Task Force sought discussions with representatives of commercial broadcasting organisations which are directly affected by Government policies in relation to equalisation of commercial television services. Discussions were therefore sought with: Sydney/Melbourne licensees; other metropolitan licensees; Regional Television Australia which represents the interests of commercial regional television licensees; and the ACTU. The Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS) declined to meet the Task Force. (4) The following made oral submissions on the dates listed: (a) Nine Network (15.1.86) (b) RTA (16.1.86 and 22.1.86) (c) Network Ten (16.1.86) (d) HSV-7 (21.1.86) (e) ATN-7 (21.1.86) (f) Other metropolitan licensees (22.1.86) (g) ACTU (15.4.86) All those listed except the ACTU also made written submissions to the Task Force. (5) Summaries of discussions with interested parties, and the usual administrative records, have been kept. (6) The Task Force serviced a Cabinet Committee and in accordance with accepted administrative practices it is not intended to publish any records or documents which arose from the work of the Task Force. (7) No. (Question No. 930) Senator Haines asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) How many employees of Telecom have lodged a claim for injury received from phenomenon of ``loud shrieks'' through telephone handsets. (2) Has the Department of Communications instituted any programs to rectify the problem. (3) What amounts have been paid in compensation to any employees who have incurred an injury from the phenomenon of ``loud shrieks''. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions based on advice provided by the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) In total, 11,137 incidents of ``loud shrieks'' were reported by Telecom employees. A small percentage of employees would have reported more than one incident. In the 1982 June quarter Telecom received more than 2100 reports of acoustic trauma. This figure fell off sharply to just over 700 cases in the December quarter of the same year. Since then there has been a gradual reduction in the number of reports with the figure for the 1986 March quarter being about 40; the lowest since June 1981. (2) Telecom has installed volume limiting units in all telephonists' operating positions. Work commenced on the installation of these units in October 1980. Since that time the unit has been modified to make it more suitable for the telephonists' positions. The unit provides protection from instantaneous high levels without restricting normal volumes. (3) Up to 7 March 1986 a total of $1,041,104 comprised of: $127,697 for medical costs $102,604 in lump sum payments $810,803 for compensation leave payment (Question No. 957) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 12 March 1986: Will the Minister for Territories obtain from the Department of Territories and make available to the Senate, an Internal Audit Report prepared during the year 1984-85 in which serious allegations of negligence and incompetence are made. Senator Gietzelt —The following answer has been provided to the honourable senator's question: While a number of internal audit reports prepared in 1984-85 pointed out weaknesses and made recommendations for improvements the Department is not aware of any report making serious allegations of negligence and incompetence. The cost of answering this question is estimated at $725.00. (Question No. 960) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 12 March 1986: (1) How many cases of legionnaires' disease have been reported in Australia in each year since that disease was identified. (2) How many cases in each of those years occurred in Commonwealth establishments. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Legionnaires' disease was identified in 1975. The disease is notifiable only in New South Wales (since 1982), Victoria (since 1979), South Australia (since 1981) and Western Australia (since 1985). Annual notifications are as follows: 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 New South Wales... 2 4 7 16 Victoria... 0 0 3 0 8 4 5 South Australia... 14 15 9 2 5 Western Australia... *3 * Made notifiable 24 May 1985. (2) The honourable senator is presumably referring to the number of cases that are thought to have been contracted during the course of employment in Commonwealth establishments Australia-wide. The Regional Offices of my Department are aware only of the following cases: Tasmania: one case, in 1984. Victoria: one case, early in 1986. (Question No. 964) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) Do population figures presented by the Department of Communications to recent inquiries conducted by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal been consistent with figures from other sources, including the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. (2) How has the Department arrived at its population figures, particularly for Aboriginal communities. (3) Has the Department estimated what the population will be in each of the 150 isolated communities originally listed for the Remote or Underserved Communities Scheme (RUCS), in 1988; if so, how were these estimates arrived at, and what were the estimates arrived at. (4) Was a single methodology used to derive the population figures used by the Department in its evaluation of the suitability of the 150 isolated communities for RUCS; if so, what was the methodology, if not, what amalgam was used. (5) What figures were arrived at for the purposes of the evaluation. (6) Why was the population listing for Fitzroy Crossing on 20 January 1986 the only one specifically qualified as ``estimate only''. (7) What policy consideration involving the economics of a project or any other matter led to the setting of 200 as the minimum population for any community to qualify for RUCS. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer in response to the honourable senator's question: (1) The population figures presented to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by the Department of Communications were based on the 1981 Census of Population and Housing population statistics published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The population figures for communities provided by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) differ from those published by the ABS. The differences can be attributed to the following factors: The ABS Census was carried out on a single day (20 June 1981); the DAA survey was not carried out simultaneously but statistics were collected over a period of months in 1983. For social and cultural reasons some Aboriginal communities have reported as members of the community, those who are permanently absent. For such reasons DAA figures are not consistent with those provided by the ABS. (2) See (1) above. (3) No estimate has been made of the population of RUCS sites in 1988. (4) Yes. The ABS Census data referred to provide population figures for all communities, or bounded rural localities with a population of 200 or more persons, and were the basis of the Department of Communications population estimates for RUCS. (5) See (4) above. (6) The Published ABS figure for Fitzroy Crossing's population was 428. However, it was subsequently acknowledged by the ABS that this figure only included the Aboriginal population of the nearby Aboriginal reserve. The non-Aboriginal population of Fitzroy Crossing proper was less than 200 and was therefore not listed by the ABS because of concern that statistics on small communities (less than 200) may breach the confidentiality of individuals. However, Departmental estimates, based on the population for the Local Government Area, place the population at close to 200. On this basis, the Aboriginal population of 428 was combined with the remaining population of approximately 200. Therefore, the total population was estimated at 628; hence the qualification ``estimate only''. (7) The 1981 Census data published by ABS provide information only on bounded rural localities with a population of 200 or more. The terms ``bounded rural localities'' and ``communities'' are for the purpose of RUCS, considered by my Department to be interchangeable. The ABS defines a bounded rural locality as a discerning nucleus of population around which a definite boundary can be drawn. Communities included in RUCS were selected in descending order of population. The smallest community selected for RUCS has a population of 500. (Question No. 965) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) What consultation has the Department of Communications undertaken with the Aboriginal communities among the 42 communities named on 20 January 1986 as those to receive ABC television via the Remote or Underserved Communities Scheme (RUCS). (2) When did consultations start with each of those communities. (3) What consultation was conducted with officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs during the process of identifying the 42 communities to be served through RUCS. (4) Do remote and underserved South Australian Aboriginal communities, such as Ernabella, have larger populations than some of the communities chosen for RUCS; if so, why have they been excluded in favour of smaller or better served communities in other areas. (5) When is it expected that the Ernabella community will receive a licence to cover the experimental community television transmissions which began a year ago. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer in response to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Communications has not directly participated in consultation with Aboriginal communities selected to receive an ABC-TV service under the Remote or Underserved Communities Scheme (RUCS). Communities were selected for RUCS in accordance with criteria announced by the Minister for Communications on 7 September 1984. From an initial list of approximately 150 communities with populations greater than 200 people, the final 42 communities were selected primarily on the basis of population size as reflected in the 1981 Census. Consultants were sent to 63 communities, including 21 Aboriginal communities, primarily to prepare engineering reports but also to provide demographic and social data, which were used in the selection process. Twelve of the communities chosen for RUCS are Aboriginal communities; all of these except Bamaga were visited by the consultants. Bamaga has a Self-help Television Reception Scheme (STRS) system which was licensed in May 1984. This system will be replaced under RUCS by a professional system suited to the population size. (2) The eleven Aboriginal communities-Kowanyama, Port Keats, Yuendumu, Hermannsburg, Manigrida, Milingimbi, Fitzroy Crossing Woorabinda, Aurukun, Doomadgee and Hooker Creek were all visited by consultants in the period February to June 1985. Bamaga corresponded with the Department at least 6 months prior to the grant of their STRS licence; some of the other communities had also contacted the Department in relation to STRS systems, prior to the consultants' visits. (3) As one of the prime criteria for RUCS selection was population, community sizes were checked with DAA at various times over the period 1983-1986. (4) No. The population of Ernabella, from 1983 DAA figures, is 372. (It is not listed separately in Bureau of Statistics Census data). The smallest community in RUCS has a population of 500 people. (5) The Department of Communications, in conjunction with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, is examining what form of licence arrangement is appropriate for remote Aboriginal communities. This study is in response to the Government's acceptance of recommendations made by the Task Force on Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting and Communications. However, the transmitting equipment at Ernabella does not meet the minimum standard for licensing. A licence could not be issued until the equipment is upgraded. (Question No. 980) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) What broadcasts were made by the Australian Trade Union officials, on Radio Moscow's Shortwave news service between the 15th of April 1985 and 14th of May 1985. (2) Did any such broadcast include a statement by the speaker, indicating that he purported to speak on behalf of the Australian Trade Union movement; if so, who was the person speaking, and in what capacity was he, in fact, visiting Moscow and speaking on the radio program. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government does not have access to complete transcripts of all Radio Moscow broadcasts. However, an examination of those transcripts which are available has not identified any such broadcasts by Australian Trade Union officials during the period in question. (Question No. 1004) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Does the Australian Government have any record of personnel from the Philippines who have trained with any Members of the Australian Defence Establishment under any sort of cooperative arrangements; if so, who are the personnel and when were they trained. (2) What follow up action has taken place to ensure that these members have shown reformist tendencies once they return to the Philippines. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. Some 760 Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) personnel have undertaken training and study visits in Australia under the Defence Cooperation Program (DCP) since 1972-73 and prior to this, under SEATO auspices from 1963-1972. In addition, formal and on-the-job training for Philippines personnel has been provided in-country as part of DCP projects. Numbers of AFP personnel who have come to Australia in each year since 1963 are: 1963... 6 1964... 4 1965... 3 1966... 2 1967... 2 1968... 2 1969... 3 1970... 4 1971... - 1972... 7 1973... 10 1974... 13 1975... 17 1976... 27 1977... 13 1978*... 25 1978-79... 42 1979-80... 40 1980-81... 115 1981-82... 98 1982-83... 119 1983-84... 70 1984-85... 68 1985-86... 76 * Prior to 1978 training was conducted on a calendar year basis; there is some overlap of the 1978 and 1978-79 figures. (2) None. It is not for the Australian Government to monitor the political attitudes of particular Filipino servicemen serving in their own country. It has been noted, however, that a significant proportion of DCP training has been directed towards middle ranking officers, the group within the AFP from which much support for the Reform Movement has come. (Question No. 1006) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) For whom was the Telecom publication released recently titled ``Around Australia Around the Clock'' intended. (2) What was the purpose of the publication. (3) Were any external public relations or advertising agencies involved in the preparation of the publication; if so, who were they and what were they paid. (4) If the publication was prepared by a Telecom Department, what was that Department's total advertising and public relations budget for the year in which this publication was prepared. (5) How many other similar glossy publications were produced by Telecom in the past 2 financial years and at what total production cost for each one. (6) How much did it cost to produce one copy of ``Around Australia Around the Clock''. (7) What was the total production cost of the publication. (8) How many copies were printed. (9) To whom was the publication distributed. 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) A cross-section of customers, including business customers, the general public, International visitors to Telecom Australia and Telecom staff. (2) The book was commissioned as part of Telecom's Tenth Birthday celebrations-to demonstrate pictorially, that Telecom is fulfilling its chartered function of providing service to all Australians in a variety of ways and also showing the nature of the network owned by the Australian community. (3) No. (4) $1.026m. (5) One at a total production cost of $24,325. (6) $1.80. (7) $53,940. (8) 30,000. (9) To State and local media, Telecom's functional managers, District Managers, and through them to the public, staff, and public libraries. (Question No. 1027) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 16 April 1986: (1) Has any internal investigation been undertaken by Telecom following claims by Channel TVQ O Eyewitness News on 17 March 1986, and on subsequent programs, and also reported by the Brisbane Courier Mail newspaper, that a small number of its employees in Brisbane are involved in an international crime ring, and have been using Telecom premises and equipment to eavesdrop on conservations in the racing industry in order to sell tips, using Telecom vans to ``case'' premises for drugs, disclosing silent telephone numbers for a fee, and de-activating phone connected burglar alarms to facilitate robberies. (2) What has been the result of any such investigations. (3) Has Telecom sought access to Channel TVQ O tapes that refer to such allegations and other information to assist in its investigations. (4) When did Telecom first become aware of the TVQ O allegations and was it prior to 17 March 1986. (5) If Telecom was aware of the Channel TVQ O allegations prior to 17 March 1986, what investigations were made, with what result and what action was taken. (6) Is there any substance to the claims made by Channel TVQ O. 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) and (2) Telecom carried out a preliminary investigation, however the nature of the allegations were such that any in depth investigations were properly the responsibility of the Australian Federal Police. Telecom cannot provide further comment since the Australian Federal Police investigations into the allegations are continuing. (3) No. The matter is currently in the jursidiction of the Australian Federal Police and it is understood there has been contact with channel TVQ O by that organisation. (4) Telecom first became aware of the allegations in late 1984. (5) See (1) and (2) above. (6) See (1) and (2) above. (Question No. 1031) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 April 1986: (1) Is it important that young people be educated about Australia's place in the Asian region. (2) Is it important for a national policy to be developed to ensure that the educational systems at primary, secondary and tertiary level be properly geared to meet our national needs in the area of relations with Asia. (3) Would an Asian Studies Council be the appropriate body to devise strategies to increase and effectively use the resources available for the teaching, research and dissemination of information about Asia within Australia. (4) Has a working party been set up to advise the Government on the possibility of creating an Asian Studies Council; if so, has that party yet reported to the Minister. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. It is vital that our young people, industry and the community as a whole be educated about Australia's place in the Asian region. (2) Yes. A national strategy to meet growing requirements in relation to Asian studies is needed, particularly to support expansion of our economic relations with Asia. Urgent advice on such a strategy has been requested of the recently established Asian Studies Council, as announced by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Trade and myself on 13 May 1986. (3) The Government has decided that an Asian Studies Council is the appropriate body to devise such strategies to stimulate and promote national awareness of Asia in industry and the community; to provide a national perspective on Asian studies requirements in Australian education; and to develop, promote and guide a national strategy for the strengthening of Asian studies to meet growing national requirements. The Government's decision followed its consideration of the Report of the Working Party on the Asian Studies Council. (4) The Working Party on the Asian Studies Council reported to the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade and myself at end December 1985. Following the announcement on 13 May 1986 of the Government's decision to establish the Asian Studies Council, copies of the Report were distributed to all Senators and Members of Parliament. As I said in the Senate on 16 April 1986, I will be making a Statement on the Council to the Senate after finalising decisions on membership of the Council. (Question No. 1032) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 April 1986: (1) Did the National Inquiry into Teacher Education (August 1980) recommend that 4 years initial preparation for all teachers should be sought as a target to be achieved during the 1980's. (2) Did the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, after extensive discussions, recommend to the Commonwewalth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) that it provide the necessary approval to allow Victoria to commence in 1986 the implementation of 4-year pre-service courses for primary students within existing resources. (3) Was the response from the CTEC that it was not willing to consider the proposal for the current 1985-87 triennium. (4) Will the Federal Government give approval for the introduction in Victoria of 4-year pre-service Bachelor of Education (Primary) courses for commencing and some continuing students in 1987, since the proposal of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission is backed up by extensive assessments and investigations at both national and state levels. (5) Will the Government also give approval for the phasing-in period in Victoria for 4-year Bachelor of Education (Primary) courses to conclude with all students completing the third year of a Bachelor of Education (Primary) in 1989 proceeding immediately to the fourth year in 1990. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) and (5) In view of the priorities given by this Government to increasing intakes into higher education and promoting greater equity of access in the 1985-87 triennium and the major resource implications of the proposal, the Government accepts the advice of CTEC that the proposal not be considered in the 1985-87 triennium. (Question No. 1040) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 30 April 1986: (1) Has concern been expressed by the Management of WIN Television Limited of the proposed change of that station from Channel 4 VHF to a UHF Channel frequency. (2) If WIN Television is forced to change to a UHF frequency, would most of the 111,700 households in the Illawarra region have to install a separate aerial which is estimated to cost $110 each and further, that 20 per cent of the viewing audience would also have to install a down converter which is estimated to cost $150. (3) Would the total cost to the local community of converting their television sets to receive UHF broadcasts be in the vicinity of $15.3m and could such a cost be deemed to be in the public interest. (4) Has the Department of Communications identified that over 9,000 residents in the Illawarra region are already experiencing deficient reception of SBS programs on Channel 28 and that more residents stand to lose access to local commercial television if the proposed change takes place; what action, if any, will the Government take to restore a local television service to the area; if not, why not. (5) If the proposed change takes place would WIN Television lose over $4m per annum in revenue through the loss of local advertising and would the loss of local advertising have a disastrous effect on the local economy. (6) Would the Minister for Communications not agree that a compromise between WIN Television and the Department of Communications could be reached on this issue, given the close proximity of the Illawarra region to Sydney, and the disastrous effect that the same change has had on the ratings of SBS television. (7) Could not such a compromise be along the lines as outlined in the Plan of Action provided to the Minister on 6 February 1986 by the Management of WIN Television, given the reluctance of the Department of Communications to maintain WIN Television on a permanent VHF Broadcasting frequency. (8) Does the Plan of Action involve the following: (a) WIN will commence transmission of a second commercial service on UHF during July 1987 in line with the Government's Equalisation of Services program. (b) Transfer WIN channel 4 to channel 3-July 1988. (c) Commence transmission of a third commercial service on UHF-January 1991. (d) Commence simulcasting WIN 3 on UHF-July 1996. (e) Cease transmission on VHF channel 3-December 1996. (9) If the Minister does not favour this Plan of Action, why not. (10) Can the Minister table in the Senate, if there is one, a list of successful UHF stations operating in the USA, in conditions similar to those that would be experienced by a UHF station if one operated in the Illawarra region. (11) Will the Minister table in the Senate, a list of all other television stations in Australia who will be required to change their broadcasting service from VHF to UHF. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes, WIN management has expressed concern about the possible impact of the change from channel 4 to a UHF channel. However, the station has not challenged the need to move from channel 4 and it acknowledges that UHF can provide a high quality service. (2) It is quite misleading to suggest that Wollongong viewers need to install UHF equipment simply to receive WIN-TV. WIN does not have to leave channel 4 until 1989; in the meanwhile, SBS-TV already serves the area on UHF and Wollongong is to receive two new commercial services on UHF as part of the Government's equalisation program. With all these services, plus WIN on UHF, the local ABC transmitter will also be switched to UHF. Thus Wollongong residents who choose to install UHF receiving equipment will be doing so in the knowledge that those facilities will ultimately give them access to five local television services. (3) Individual householders will invest in UHF receiving equipment because they wish to have access to better reception and a greater choice of television programs. Attempting to aggregate the investment that people in one area are prepared to make to obtain that greater choice is meaningless. The local public investment in large VHF antennas and video-cassette recorders, is an example of the investment made in the past by residents to obtain greater choice in TV programming. The investment necessary in UHF-TV antennas will be quite small by comparison. (4) SBS-TV currently transmits in Wollongong on UHF channels 59 and 44. While it is true that in some areas of Wollongong the UHF signals are less than accurate, the main SBS transmitter is currently using an interim antenna. Signal levels will be increased when the final antenna is installed. I should emphasize that local terrain makes the Illawarra a difficult area to cover with television signals. The problem areas referred to by Senator Mason actually involve less than five percent of Wollongong residents; Department of Communications surveys indicate that the present UHF coverage of Wollongong is actually superior to that provided on channel 4 in some areas. (5) Inspection of the FDU Report on Future Directions for Commercial Television, shows that WIN serves one of the largest and most lucrative markets in regional television in Australia. The proposed change in transmission arrangements has the potential to affect the size of WIN's viewing audience and thus affect its revenue. Officers of the Department of Communications are working with the station to establish arrangements which will minimise the impact on viewers and the station's future operations. (6) As noted in 5 above, officers of the Department of Communications are negotiating with WIN management, to find the smoothest possible path for WIN's transition from channel 4 to UHF. The need for WIN to change frequency arises from the fact that its continued operation on channel 4 is severely hampering the introduction of new FM radio services. 9(7) Every option for WIN to remain on a VHF channel has been fully investigated over a period of years. The proposal put forward by WIN management on 6 February 1986 relies entirely on the station being able to move its main transmitter from channel 4 to channel 3. Such a move is difficult to contemplate when one realises that, just like channel 4, channel 3 overlaps the FM radio band. As in the case of WIN, television stations currently using channel 3 have to be moved to new channels to allow FM radio development to proceed. (8) Yes. (9) In addition to the factors addressed in the answer to question seven, the WIN plan suggests that a third commercial service would not commence in Wollongong until 1991. (10) There is no such list. While, in the northern part of its market, WIN suffers some competition because viewers are also able to watch the three Sydney commercial stations, in the remainder of its service area WIN has enjoyed a total monopoly situation since it first opened. In commercial television in the USA, competition is fierce and every station shares its entire market with numerous competitors. It is doubtful that there would be a single station in the USA which enjoys a monopoly situation such as WIN currently enjoys. (11) A comprehensive timetable for the clearance of television services from channels 3, 4 and 5 (known as Band II) is currently being compiled. This document will include details of the channels to which each station is to be shifted, as well as the approximate date by which the move needs to be implemented. A draft of the timetable is to be available for public comment later this year and it will certainly be made available to Senators. (Question No. 1047) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) What information is available to the Australian public about a little publicised dam collapse in Sri Lanka on 20 April 1986. (2) Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs in a position to confirm or deny a claim by a Norwegian aid official that 2500 people were missing following the disaster and that a further 7800 are homeless. (3) Was the tragedy the result of a structural malfunction or was the dam deliberately breached. (4) Has any organisation claimed responsibility for breaching the dam. (5) Has any request been made to Australia from the Government of Sri Lanka for financial or other assistance for the victims. (6) Will consideration be given by the Australian Government for the provision of aid if the extent of the disaster is as severe as claimed by the Norwegian official. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) On 20 April 1986 the main wall of the Kantalai Reservoir near Trincomalee in north-eastern Sri Lanka collapsed. Floodwaters washed over dozens of surrounding villages. (2) Latest reports indicate that 127 people have been killed or are missing feared dead and some 6000 people have been made homeless. Earlier reports suggested that the devastation, in terms of numbers of people affected, was far worse than has proved to be the case. (3) and (4) The collapse was a natural disaster. The Sri Lankan Minister for National Security has himself ruled out the possibility that the collapse was the result of sabotage and no organisation has claimed responsibility for the disaster. (5) At the request of the Sri Lankan Government the UN Disaster Relief Organisation (UNDRO) on 24 April 1986 launched an international appeal for assistance. (6) The Australian Government has contributed $50,000 to the UNDRO appeal for victims of the dam collapse. The funds are being directed to the League of Red Cross Societies, one of the agencies assisting affected Sri Lankans. (Question No. 1050) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) Are current statistics on the number and percentage of trucks believed to be operating with defects on Australian roads available and could the Minister for Tansport provide a State by State breakdown and include the Territories in view of information provided by the New South Wales Department of Motor Transport that half the trucks on roads in that State have defects. (2) What current measures are in place between the Commonwealth and the States to monitor and enforce laws against all defective vehicles but particularly trucks. (3) What proportion of (a) fatal, and (b) non-fatal but recorded accidents on Australian roads, involved trucks in the following yearly periods: 1983-84, 1984-85, and so far as records show in the current financial year. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The major problem of compiling national statistics on trucks operating with defects is the lack of consistency of data recorded by States and Territories. Legal requirements vary and there are differences in interpretations and definitions of a truck. The following limited information is provided in respect of New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. New South Wales-N.S.W. Report on Heavy Vehicle Inspection Results for 1984-85 are: 36,752 inspections conducted of which 17,644 (48.0%) were found to be defective and 2,390 (6.5%) had major or extremely dangerous defects. Queensland-1983-84, 80,503 commercial vehicles inspected 9,883 re-inspected (defective) (12.3%). 1984-85, 80,752 commercial vehicles inspected 9,873 re-inspected (defective) (12.2%). July 85 to March 86, 45,520 commercial vehicles inspected 8,710 re-inspected (defective) (19.1%). South Australia-Police have power to issue defect notices to vehicles which are in an unroadworthy condition. It is estimated that 10% of notices issued would be for commercial vehicles. (2) Individual States and Territories are currently responsible for monitoring the incidence of defective vehicles and for enforcing road safety laws for vehicles travelling within a particular State or Territory. Under the Interstate Road Tansport Act 1985, a Federal Registration Scheme for vehicles engaged in interstate trade and commerce is planned to commence on 1 January 1987. Vehicles registering in the scheme will be inspected annually. It is expected that the incidence of vehicle rejections will be recorded as part of the statistics that will be required to be kept under the Federal Scheme. (3) Statistics of road crashes on Australian roads are aggregated into calendar year totals and fiscal year totals are not readily available. Information available on the involvement of trucks in fatal crashes and crashes resulting in admission to hospitals is available, as follows, for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985. Crashes Involving Trucks Year Fatal crashes Number Per cent of total Crashes involving admissions to hospitals Number Per cent of total 1983... 326 13.2 1598+ 7.3+ 1984... 356 14.0 1603+ 7.2+ 1985... 200* 11.9* 1595+ 6.9+ * Excluding NSW-data which is not yet available. + Excluding ACT-data which is not yet available. (Question No. 1051) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) Has the Australian Consumers' Association called for stricter regulations to be applied to protect consumers from unsafe or ineffectual alternative medicine products. (2) What measures are in place to check the quality or the efficacy of such products before they are offered for sale to the public. (3) What measures are in place to check the medical, and/or pharmaceutical qualifications of those responsible for producing alternative medicines for public sale. (4) Are any figures available on how many alternative medical practitioners are operating in Australia and how many patients they attract. (5) Is any attempt being made to register these people and monitor their practices. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I understand the Australian Consumers' Association has called for stricter regulations to be applied to protect consumers from unsafe or ineffectual alternative medicine products in a submission it has made to the Victorian Inquiry into Alternative Medicine and the Health Food Industry. (2) Under current legislation, local manufacturers of these preparations may be inspected to ensure that their products are manufactured in accordance with a Code of Good Manufacturing Practice; that however is a matter for the States. National legislation for licensing of manufacturers, which would be conditional upon inspection under the Code of Good Manufacturing Practice, is being discussed with State Health Ministers. With regard to preparations being imported into Australia, my Department endeavours to obtain a statement from the regulatory authority in the country of export that they have been manufactured under a Code of Good Manufacturing Practice, and that the manufacturer's premises are regularly inspected. So far as efficacy is concerned no checks are made but the only claims allowed are confined to simple statements along traditional lines of use. (3) At present this is a matter for State law. Under the Australian Code of Good Manufacturing Practice the key personnel involved in the manufacture and control of therapeutic goods should have a background of appropriate education or appropriate experience or a combination thereof, for assuming responsibility to ensure that the goods have the identity, strength, quality and purity that they purport to possess. (4) The only figures available on how many alternative medical practitioners are operating in Australia are detailed below: Chiropractors: NSW...602* Vic....439 Qld...270 WA...152 SA...186 Tas.... 15 ACT... 24 NT...Figures unavailable Total 1 688 *Includes 90 chiropractors/osteopaths. Source: Figures for Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory are from the Australian Chiropractors' Association; figures for other States are from the respective State registration authorities. Osteopaths: Separate figures are not held for osteopaths and in most States and Territories joint chiropractors/osteopaths comprise the majority of registrants. Naturopaths: Figures available for naturopaths are for 1984, and represent naturopaths accredited by the Australian Natural Therapies Accreditation Board: NSW...168 Vic....152 Qld... 39 WA... 14 SA... 10 Total 383 Data for other States and Territories not available. Source: Australian Natural Therapists Association. Acupuncturists: Figures available for acupuncturists are for 1984 and represent acupuncturists accredited by the Australian Natural Therapies Accreditation Board. NSW...83 Vic....33 Qld...30 WA... 6 SA... 4 Total 156 Data for other States and Territories not available. Source: Australian Natural Therapists Association. The figures from the 1983 Australian Health Survey indicate that 1.9% of the population or approximately 288,000 persons consulted with either a chiropractor, osteopath, naturopath, herbalist or acupuncturist during the two weeks prior to the interview taking place. (5) Registration of medical and paramedical health occupations is not a function of my portfolio. Each State and Territory Government determines which health occupations should be registrable within its jurisdiction and maintains its own registers accordingly. (Question No. 1056) Senator Zakharov asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 5 May 1986: (1) Can the Minister for Science give details of funding sources for Antarctic research. (2) What percentage comes from Federal, State, University and Private funding, respectively. (3) Can the Minister give details of: (a) the criteria for allocation of funding specifically for scientific research in particular areas, such as geology, physics or biology, in Antarctica; and (b) the percentage of that funding allocated to such specific areas of scientific research in Antarctica. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Federal funding for Antarctic research and data collection is provided through the Antarctic Division, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Ionospheric Prediction Service of the Department of Science; and through the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Division of National Mapping of the Department of Resources and Energy. State funding of Antarctic research is provided through the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service for research conducted on Macquarie Island. Antarctic research conducted by universities is funded through the Australian Research Grants Scheme, the Marine Sciences and Technologies Grants, and through individual University funds. Details of funding for organisations that are involved in Antarctic research but are outside the Antarctic Division are not routinely available and a survey has not been conducted recently. The Antarctic Division of the Department of Science allocated $7.545 million to Antarctic research in 1985/86. This figure includes salaries, administrative and operational expenses. (3) (a) Allocation of funds for research in various disciplines depends on the scientific merit of programs as assessed by scientific experts, on the area of operations in the Antarctic, the extent to which programs proposed are capital intensive, the extent of logistic support required, and the staff resources required to support the projects proposed. The broad directions in which research can proceed are determined by the Antarctic Science Advisory Committee (or its predecessor, the Antarctic Research Policy Advisory Committee), and thus the extent to which disciplines can be financially supported is a reflection of the priorities established by these Committees. (3) (b) The percentage of Antarctic Division funding of Antarctic research for 1986/87, including salaries, administrative and operational expenditure, according to the scientific disciplines studies, is as follows: Per cent Marine Science ... 47 Glaciology ... 15 Land-Based Biology ... 7 Upper Atmosphere Physics ... 7 Medical Research ... 4 Cosmic Ray Physics ... 3 Scientific Instrumentation ... 17 (Question No. 1060) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 May 1986: Is it the intention of the Government to establish taxation enquiry units or ``hotlines'' similar to that which proved necessary during the introduction of the assets test, in order to satisfactorily handle the anticipated flood of enquiries from taxpayers and business houses in relation to the fringe benefits taxation; if so- (a) how many employees will be attached to each of these units; (b) what is the designation and salary of each staff member attached to the unit; (c) what is the anticipated duration of these units; (c) what is the anticipated total cost of establishing and maintaining these units; Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commissioner of Taxation has advised me that enquiry units have been established by the Tax Office in Branch offices. Toll-free telephone services have been established in each State so that people outside metropolitan areas will not be disadvantaged when seeking information about fringe benefits tax. These toll-free numbers and local numbers were published on the back of the booklet ``Fringe Benefits Tax: a guide for employers''. (a) There are 54 taxation officers presently attached to these units. (b) The breakdown by designation and annual salary ranges of these officers is as follows- 2 x clerk class 8 ($31609-32849) 2 x clerk class 7 ($28602-30206) 10 x clerk class 6 ($26041-27694) 8 x clerk class 5 ($23389-25264) 19 x clerk class 4 ($20794-22669) 13 x clerk class 2/3 ($17834-20099) The Commissioner anticipates that the number of staff required to be utilised in these units will be significantly reduced as employers become more aware of their fringe benefits tax responsibilities. I would also ask the honourable Senator to bear in mind that the officers who are presently in these units are not only receiving and answering enquiries about fringe benefits tax, but also a wide range of general taxation matters as a result of taxpayers using the facilities to satisfy other taxation queries. The FBT facility is also being used to provide an enquiry service for the income tax substantiation rules effective from 1 July 1986. (c) The Commissioner of Taxation advised me that it is his intention to maintain these units for 12 months, but the need would be reviewed in the light of demand. (d) In addition to the salaries of the officers utilised in the enquiry units, other costs which have been incurred in the establishment of the enquiry units are $4320.00 for the installation of the toll-free numbers and $13250.00 for 12 months advance rental for these numbers. At this time there is no measure of the cost of calls from employers. (Question No. 1061) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 May 1986: What steps are being taken by the Government to fully inform the Australian public of the change in the tax collection system with the introduction of the fringe benefits tax to take effect from 1 July 1986. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Tax Office has conducted a direct mailing exercise to as many potential fringe benefits taxpayers as can be identified. These taxpayers have received a booklet entitled Fringe Benefits Tax-a guide for employers-which informs them of the way the proposed legislation would operate-as well as a ``Request for Employer Information'' form and a letter from the Commissioner of Taxation informing employers of the legislation being introduced. The direct mailing exercise encompassed 313,099 group employers and 133,426 tax stamp employers. The booklets have been issued to all branch Tax Offices. Branch Offices are sending booklets out to tax stamp employers where tax stamp book application cards have been received from Post Offices since the time of the direct mailing exercise. Booklets have been provided to Parliament, all Commonwealth and State Government Departments and authorities, commercial tax reporting services, the Parliamentary Press Gallery, Media Liaison Service and various accounting firms and interest groups. In addition, principal Tax Offices in all States have a toll-free telephone number and several extension lines to answer fringe benefits tax inquiries. The Tax Office proposes to address the income tax implications of the new tax for employers and employees in a leaflet planned to be available in Post Offices and Taxation Offices in July 1986. (Question No. 1063) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 May 1986: (1) Why was it decided that the recently purchased extracorporeal shock wave lithotripter should be located at Prince Henry Hospital in Sydney's eastern suburbs. (2) Is a privately owned and operated lithotripter located at Wentworthville in Sydney's western suburbs. (3) Will the location of the Government-funded equipment a great distance from Sydney's western suburbs disadvantage residents in those areas. (4) Will the Government give the closest consideration to locating future items of advanced medical technology in one of the many hospitals in the western suburbs. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) While the Commonwealth Government has offered to contribute to the capital cost of the purchase and installation of an extracorporeal shock wave lithotripter (ESWL) Unit in both New South Wales and Victoria, it is State governments that are responsible for the administration and provision of health services. The New South Wales Government's decision on the siting of the ESWL unit was based on factors such as the hospital's established clinical expertise in areas associated with this new technology. (2) Yes. (3) No. The New South Wales Government will have adequate arrangements for the referral of patients to the proposed facility. (4) As indicated in my answer to (1) this is a matter for State Government consideration, but I am sure that the needs of Sydney's western suburbs will be considered. (Question No. 1064) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 May 1986: (1) Why was it decided that the recently purchased magnetic resonance imaging scanner should be located at Sydney's Royal North Shore Hospital. (2) Will the location of the Government-funded equipment a great distance from Sydney's western suburbs disadvantage residents in those areas. (3) Will the Government give the closest consideration to locating any future scanner in one of the many hospitals in Sydney's western suburbs following the results of the evaluation of the present machines. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) While the Commonwealth Government has offered to contribute to the capital cost of the purchase and installation of a nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMRI) Unit in all five mainland States, it is State governments that are responsible for the administration and provision of health services. The New South Wales Government's decision on the siting of the NMRI unit was based on factors such as the hospital's established clinical expertise in areas associated with this new technology. (2) No. The New South Wales Government will have adequate arrangements for the referral of patients to the proposed facility. (3) As indicated in my answer to (1) this is a matter for State Government consideration, but I am sure that the needs of Sydney's western suburbs will be considered. (Question No. 1066) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 May 1986: (1) How significant are marketing tactics by the United States and Europe to the decline in the fortunes of some Australian farmers, given the reported remarks by the United States Ambassador to Australia, Mr Bill Lane, that Australia should stop complaining that the United States is preying on its farm produce markets. (2) What are the marketing tactics and which areas of agriculture are being worst affected. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Australian farmers are among the most efficient in the world. They are not shielded from the operations of the market and are obliged to respond directly to market price signals. There is no doubt that competition for sales from heavily subsidised exporters from the US and the EC has been a major contributing factor to the current Australian rural problems. The agricultural support policies of the US and the European Community have resulted in a continued growth in production in these countries and a major buildup of stocks with a consequent adverse effect on free market prices. World trade in agricultural commodities is becoming increasingly distorted as the major stockholding nations have increasingly resorted to export subsidies to dispose of these stocks. Producers in the US and EC have been insulated from the deteriorating world market prices caused by this export subsidisation by either import restrictions, price support or deficiency payments. Australian producers, on the other hand, are particularly vulnerable to the price-depressing effects of these subsidies as they are price takers on the world market. For example, international wheat prices have declined by almost 25% over the past five years. The effect of this price decline has been a dramatic reduction in incomes for grain producers. The BAE has estimated, for example, that, for wheat, farm income on family farms declined from $47,500 in 1981/82 to minus $7,500 in 1985/86. In recent months the international trading situation has deteriorated, with increasing trade tensions between the US and the EC because of the provisions associated with the accession of Spain and Portugal, and increases in EC export subsidies in retaliation for US Export Enhancement Program (EEP) sales. The Australian Government has repeatedly cautioned both the US and the EC that there can be no winners in any trade war and that the proper avenues for the resolution of such conflicts are in multilateral fora such as the GATT. The policies of the US and the EC are not the only international factors currently having an adverse effect on the rural sector. Other factors include the fall in the growth in import demand by major developing countries in line with slower income growth in these countries and policy changes in centrally planned economies, for example China, and in other countries, such as India, which have resulted in major increases in production in these countries and a consequent drop in import demand in some traditional markets. (2) The main international marketing tactics of the US and the EC are the EEP, the Targeted Export Assistance Program (TEAP), marketing loan schemes for rice and cotton and the provision of Government-guaranteed export credit in the US, and the use of export subsidies (referred to as restitutions by Europeans) in the EC. The EEP is a program authorising the spending of up to $US1.5 billion on assistance for exports of agricultural products. It will apply over the three US fiscal years to 30 September 1988 and a minimum of $1 billion must be spent on the program during this period. The program which was announced on 15 May 1985, and subsequently included in the US Food Security Act of 1985 (US Farm Bill), offers US Government-owned commodities as bonuses against commercial sales of US agricultural products to targeted markets. The objectives of the program have been specified as being to increase US agricultural exports and to regain markets taken unfairly by foreign competitors who use export subsidies, in particular the EC. The Australian Government has made many representations to the US Administration, members of Congress and industry representatives on the EEP since its inception. The Prime Minister has written to President Reagan on two occasions emphasising Australia's concerns and also raised these matters in discussions with the President and with Administration officials during his visit to Washington in April. I put our concerns to the Secretary for Agriculture and other senior US figures on a number of occasions last year and in June this year. The Minister for Trade visited Washington in February to take up, at first hand, Australia's concerns on the EEP and the Farm Bill, and, in early June undertook bilateral discussions with the EC and the US during a visit to the Republic of Korea, Canada and the US. During my most recent visit, I stressed that Australian farmers would lose around one third of their net income in the next year as a direct result of the US Farm Act. I pointed out that the subsidised disposal of surplus products in the US was creating havoc in international markets and seriously damaging the economies of agricultural dependent countries. I was reassured that Australian concerns were genuinely considered in the administration of the EEP and that the US was attempting to manage its export programs in ways that would limit their effect on non-subsidising countries. In addition to these visits and approaches, our Embassy in Washington has made continued representations on the subject, particularly in cases where Australian markets have been threatened. These approaches have had some degree of success. It is our assessment that they contributed to the decision by Congress, in March, to halve the mandatory expenditure provision of the EEP from $US2 billion to $US 1 billion. We have also been given assurances that the EEP will be administered on a targeted basis aimed essentially at markets of subsidising exporters, and that recipients under the EEP will be encouraged to maintain their normal level of imports from traditional non-subsidising suppliers such as Australia. To date, the bulk of EEP expenditure has been directed towards exports of grains, although the Farm Bill provisions for the program state that 15% of the total expenditure must be in the area of livestock products. Specific EEP initiatives have been announced for wheat, wheat flour, rice, barley malt, barley, semolina, mixed poultry feed, frozen poultry, eggs and dairy cattle. A second export assistance program which could have implications for Australia is the Targeted Export Assistance Program (TEAP). This program provides for mandatory expenditure of $110 million a year for US fiscal years 1986-88 and $325 million a year for 1989-1990, in cash or commodities, to counter or offset the adverse effects of subsidies, import quotas or other unfair trade practices on the export of US agricultural commodities. While TEAP expenditure to date has been confined to promotional expenditure for fruit and vegetables, provision also exists for the implementation of a blended credit program. This involves a mix of commercial and concessional credit for US agricultural exports, thereby effectively reducing the cost of such credit. Such a program, if implemented, could further disrupt international agricultural trade. The marketing loan schemes for rice and cotton are also of concern to Australia. These involve the provision of additional subsidies through repayment of Government loans at less than the loan rate and provision for payments-in-kind to rice and cotton producers. The loan rate is the price per unit (bushel, bale or pound) at which the US Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) will provide loans to farmers who participate in commodity programs and who submit their crop as collateral. The rate is also the effective price at which the CCC purchases the crop from producers who choose to repay their loan by forfeiting their crops. These subsidy provisions allow exporters to offer rice and cotton on world markets at lower prices. Such action could, if the prices were sufficiently low, threaten Australian interests in major rice and cotton markets. In fact, the rice provisions have allowed US exporters to contemplate exporting rice to Papua New Guinea, Australia's largest market for rice. To date, however, we have received no indication of actual shipments of rice from the US to this market. The Government has also been concerned about the possibility of the spead of marketing loan schemes to other crops, for example wheat. However, during my recent visit to the US, I was advised by Secretary for Agriculture Lyng that marketing loans would not be introduced for wheat in 1987. This prospect has not been ruled out, however, for later years, should the agricultural situation not improve. Other US export marketing practices which reduce the competitiveness of Australian exports are the use of Government-guaranteed export credits for periods ranging from 6 months to 10 years. Australia has voiced its objections to the Administration over the introduction of a 3-10 year export credit guarantee program under the Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program. As part of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the EC implements a program of export restitutions (subsidies) on the export of specified agricultural commodities to designated markets. This is necessary to dispose of the surpluses generated by the CAP's domestic support policies. These subsidies amounted to around $A9.3 billion in 1984 and $A9.6 billion in 1985. This represented 36% of the total Community support to its agricultural sector in 1984 ($A25.8 billion) and 34% of total support in 1985 ($A28.2 billion). Moreover, in these two years, EC budgetary support for the CAP took 70% and 67% of the total EC budget. The operation of the CAP has affected world prices for many of Australia's agricultural exports, either through EC export activities or EC import restrictions. For the major temperate products, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has estimated that the EC's agricultural policies have depressed world prices by an average of 16% over the past decade. The Australian Government is continually seeking to place our concerns before the EC Commission and EC Member States. I have pressed these concerns myself on many occasions. I visited the Community in February and June last year and again in June this year for discussions with EC Commissioners and Commission officials, and with the Ministers for Agriculture of various EC Member States. Again, other Ministers including the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade have made many personal representations on the need for CAP reform and the avoidance of actions that would adversely affect Australian rural exports. Australia has also been prominent in the public debate on reform of the CAP, and in September 1985 presented a submission to the Commission on its Green Paper on ``Perspectives for the Common Agricultural Policy''. The 1986/87 EC farm price package recently agreed by the EC Council of Agricultural Ministers was disappointing in its implications for reform of the CAP. The message that I bore in my recent trip was that such reform could no longer be evaded. The recent appointment of a Special Trade Representative in Europe will further enhance our ability to make representations to the EC Member States and interested groups in the EC. (Question No. 1069) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: (1) How many new major hotels (a) have been built in Australia since 1983; (b) are presently under construction in Australia; and (c) are planned for future construction in Australia. (2) What is the value of the projects in each of the groups in (a), (b) and (c) above. (3) How many major refurbishments of major hotels (a) have been completed in Australia since 1983; (b) are presently in progress; and (c) are planned in Australia. (4) What is the value of the projects in each of the groups in (a), (b) and (c) above. (5) How many new jobs in the Australian tourist accommodation industry (a) have been created since 1983; and (b) are expected to be created in the next 3 years. (6) Have new and expanded hotels experienced any difficulty in finding trained staff. (7) What steps in the Government taking to increase funding for training in the tourism accommodation industry. (8) Does the strong growth of investment and employment in the tourist accommodation industry give the lie to the myth that penalty rates are forcing establishments to close. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question as follows: (1) (2) (a) Information provided to the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism by State/Territory tourism authorities indicates that since December 1983 the number of major international standard hotels has increased by almost 50 per cent to 58 establishments in operation as at 31 December 1985. The Australian Bureau of Statistics' Australian Tourist Accommodation Series shows that overall the number of hotels/motels increased by 179 establishments, from 3,750 to 3,929 between the March quarter 1983 and the September quarter 1985 (latest available data). From an analysis of figures provided by Cordell Building Publications, the Department has estimated that between 1 July 1982 and 31 March 1984 tourist accommodation and resort projects (including major hotels) valued at $646.1 million commenced. However this figure showed strong growth over the next seven quarters from 1 April 1984 to 31 December 1985 when projects to the value of over $1540 million commenced. (1) (2) (b) At the end of the December quarter 1985 there were 21 major international standard establishments under construction. The value of all major tourism projects under construction (including major hotels) as at 31 December 1985 was $2,498 million. Source: State/Territory tourism authorities. (1) (2) (c) At the end of the December quarter 1985 information supplied to the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, by the State/Territory tourism authorities, showed there were 12 major hotels firmly committed to commence construction within approximately eighteen months. Analysis of data supplied to the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism by Cordell Building Publications indicates that as at 31 December 1985 there were $6,389 million of proposed tourist accommodation and resort developments in the pipeline. Although not all of the developments will proceed in the short term the figures do serve to highlight the buoyant nature of the tourism industry and the interest and confidence of investors. (3) (4) Official statistics on hotel refurbishments are not available. (5) (a) While accurate statistics are not available, it is estimated that as at 30 September 1985 there were about 76,200 persons employed full-time and part-time in the hotel/motel industry. This represents an increase of some 8,900 positions since 31 March 1983. (b) Based on the levels of tourism related construction activity the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism estimates that tourism projects commenced since 31 March 1984 will contribute around 8,300 permanent full and part-time jobs as they are progressively completed and become operational. (6) Yes. The growth in tourism in Australia has created strong demand for trained staff to work in the accommodation sector. The CES has mounted special recruitment drives to find suitable staff for major new international standard hotels such as the Regent of Sydney and the Sydney Inter-Continental. Various other measures have been adopted by the Government to overcome the problem. (7) The Government has already taken steps to increase funding for training in all sectors of the tourism industry including the accommodation sector by increasing the allocation for the National Tourism Industry Training Committee (NTITC) every year since 1983, in addition to providing significant funds for broader labour market programs which also benefit the industry. (8) A number of misconceptions about the impact of penalty rates still exist. If the tourism industry is to fulfil its potential for job generation, it needs to be recognised that, as a seven day a week industry, a sensible wage formula and flexibility in award provisions is required. The issue of penalty rates however cannot be considered in isolation. I understand that there is an opportunity for tourism industry interest to be aired before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the context of the proposed review of minimum rates, paid rates and supplementary payments. (Question No. 1071) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: (1) At what stage is the proposed review of weight limits for heavy road vehicles conducted by the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities. (2) What is the Government's attitude to this proposal. (3) What effect would increased weight limits have on the cost of road maintenance. (4) What effect would increased weight limits have on construction standards for new roadworks and what would be the cost of any changed standards. (5) What is the Government's attitude to the funding of any increased costs. (6) What effect would increased weight limits have on fuel consumed by the road transport industry and what would be the revenue effect of altered consumption levels. (7) What consideration has been given to the road safety aspects of increased weight limits. (8) What special problems would be caused in relation to rural roads by increased weight limits. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Review of Road Vehicle Limits has been released by the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities for public comment. The period for public comment was extended at the initiative of the Federal Government from 30 March to 30 June 1986 following advice from the Australian Road Freight Transport Advisory Committee, which is an industry advisory body reporting to the Federal Minister for Transport. In addition, a special working party of government and industry representatives has prepared a paper for public comment by 31 July 1986 which examines possible cost recovery measures. (2) The Federal Government will determine its final attitude to the Review of Road Vehicle Limits Study once all interested community groups have had an adequate opportunity to respond to the Study and to the paper on possible cost recovery measures prepared by a special working party of government and industry representatives. (3) The Review of Road Vehicle Limits Study canvassed three alternative options, A, B, and C, for revised vehicle mass and dimension limits. For a typical semi-trailer in the eastern States these options could respectively involve a gross vehicle mass of 41 tonnes, 42 tonnes and 42.5 tonnes, compared to the existing mass limit of 38 tonnes. The study team estimated that the increased costs to maintain the road system for each option in 1984/85 prices would be as follows: $M Option A... 60.1 Option B... 87.1 Option C... 99.0 (4) The costs of constructing and maintaining roads to accommodate higher vehicle mass limits as estimated in the Review of Road Vehicle Limits Study are outlined in the answers to part 3. These costs reflect higher construction standards for particular roads. (5) The Federal Government shares the view of the Australian Transport Advisory Council which brings together Federal, State and Territory Ministers responsible for transport, that: any additional costs associated with relaxing vehicle mass and dimension limits should be recovered from road user beneficiaries, and any additional revenues should be earmarked for expenditure on roads. (6) The Review of Road Vehicle Limits Report estimated that annual revenue cost savings in fuel consumption in 1984/85 prices for each option would be as follows: $M Option A... 26.0 Option B... 35.0 Option C... 40.0 The revenue effects of higher vehicle mass and dimension limits would depend on the degree to which they were utilized by industry. The implications for the Federal Government are not expected to be significant. (7) The Review of Road Vehicle Limits Study examined safety issues connnected with relaxing vehicles mass and dimension limits and, in addition, the Federal Government sought advice from the Federal Office of Road Safety. After careful consideration the Office concluded that: the proposed increases in mass and dimension limits would not have any adverse safety implications current Australian Design Rules have the capacity to handle the proposed mass increase. The Federal Office of Road Safety also commented that although further improvements to the Australian Design Rules are being developed, they are not a pre-requisite for the safe introduction of proposed mass limits. All the proposed mass limits are in use in one or more States already and, as a consequence, many vehicles now in use have been designed and certified to operate at the proposed limits. (8) Special problems of the various classes of roads, including rural roads, were taken into account in the cost estimates contained in the Review of Road Vehicles Study which were provided in the answer to Part 3. They are also recognised in the ATAC cost recovery principles outlined in the answer to part 5. (Question No. 1073) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: (1) When did Mr M. Hogan resign as Chairman of the Taxation Board of Review No. 3 in Brisbane. (2) When was his successor appointed. (3) Who was his replacement. (4) How many times did the Board meet in the intervening 5 months. (5) What is the annual cost of salaries of the other 2 Board members, their secretaries, the Board's stenographer and any other associated staff, the rent of the board rooms, telephones and other miscellaneous expenses. (6) What did the other 2 Board members do in the intervening 5 months. (7) How many appeals did they sit on. (8) What is the present backlog in appeals and how long is the average delay in having a case heard before the Taxation Board of Review. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 30 August 1985 (2) 19 December 1985 (3) Mr K. L. Beddoe, formerly Senior Assistant Commissioner in the Australian Taxation Office and responsible for the Appeals Division. (4) The Board met to consider 6 references in September and 23 relief applications in November. (5) Annual costs are: $ Salary and allowances of two members ... 137,000 Secretarial Staff ... 57,000 Rental ... 61,400 Administrative costs ... 55,000 310,400 (6) The remaining members issued decisions in 15 references and heard and produced reports in 23 relief cases. They conducted call-overs of cases in Hobart and Melbourne to arrange later sittings of the full Board. They attended to the daily administration of the Board. (7) During the 5 month interval the Board sat on 6 references. (8) At present there are approximately 44,000 references awaiting hearing in the Boards of Review. This includes some 34,000 tax avoidance scheme cases, few of which are expected to go to a hearing. Most will very likely be determined by court decisions in leading cases. Because of the expected high drop out rate it is difficult to estimate the delay currently to be expected in having a case heard. The procedure adopted by the Boards of listing cases for mention or call-over is designed to allow the Boards to select out and hear taxpayers who genuinely wish to proceed and to eliminate the remainder. The hearing rate is expected to increase significantly following the transfer on 1 July 1986 of the functions of the Boards to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the latter having capacity to arrange single member hearings and where appropriate, to constitute the Tribunal with a Federal Court Judge, a Deputy President, senior member or member. (Question No. 1074) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: (1) What is the extent of radioactivity in tobacco smoke. (2) What are the main radioactive components. (3) What mechanisms exist to allow the Australian public to know the answers to questions (1) and (2) above. (4) What mechanisms exist to require advertisements or containers of tobacco products to make known this information. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Tobacco smoke from a single cigarette has an average radioactivity content of about 20 millibecquerels of lead-210, bismuth-210 and polonium-210 plus small amounts of radium-226 and its short lived radioactive daughters. (2) The main radioactive components are lead-210 and polonium-210. (3) and (4) A range of mechanisms exist for informing the Australian public about the main radioactive components and the extent of radioactivity in tobacco smoke. These include news releases, package labelling-for example, through an extension of the existing Voluntary Code in Respect of CPM (`Tar') and Nicotine Labelling on Cigarette Packaging, and an extension of the existing Voluntary Advertising Code for Cigarettes in Australia. The open scientific literature indicates that the radioactive content of cigarette smoke does not make a significant contribution to the incidence of lung cancer within the general population. Therefore-and in view of the already very high health risks of smoking-I do not consider a requirement for information about radioactivity to appear in labelling and advertising of tobacco products is warranted. Rather, continuing efforts should be directed to informing people that there is no such thing as a `safe' cigarette and that smoking at any level is harmful to health. The National Campaign Against Drug Abuse is an important mechanism in this connection. (Question No. 1075) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Will the Minister for Aviation request an immediate investigation of dangerous sliding doors at the Brisbane International Airport. (2) Was a 10 month child recently hit by automatic sliding doors, which could have caused a very serious injury. (3) If such automatic doors are a luxury the travelling public cannot be without, will the Minister ensure that warning signs are erected to protect against injuries. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) An investigation has been carried out of the operation of sliding doors at the Brisbane Airport International Terminal. (2) A complaint was made in writing to the Airport Director by the father of a 10 month old child, that on 11 April 1986 his daughter ``came close to being crushed by the sliding airport doors''. His is the only report received on the incident. (3) As a result of the report, action has been taken to reduce the length of travel of the automatic doors, to provide positive door stops and also to attach warning notices. (Question No. 1076) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 27 May 1986 (1) Is the Home and Community Care Program in New South Wales operating out of 10 regional offices to very adequately serve the needs of the elderly throughout that State. (2) What guarantees has the Minister for Community Services received from his State counterpart to ensure that regional planning is also a feature of the Home and Community Care Program to provide aged care services to all centres of population in Queensland. Given the greater decentralised nature of Queensland with 55 per cent of the population living outside Brisbane. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) While administrative procedures for the Home and Community Care (HACC) Program are jointly approved, day to day administration of the program is the responsibility of State governments. In New South Wales the administering authority is the Department of Youth and Community Services. Program administration in this state is currently being developed and interim administrative and consultative arrangements have been established. An interim State Advisory Committee, which includes representatives of Commonwealth and State departments as well as service providers and users, will seek to identify local and regional priorities. Officers of my Department attend meetings of the interim State Advisory Committee, and are involved in assessment of projects and the development of plans at a regional level. Funding proposals are considered jointly. Program administration is carried out on a regional basis through the Department of Youth and Community Services' ten regional offices. This arrangement permits a careful consideration of regional needs consistent with overall program policy. (2) The Queensland Government signed the Home and Community Care Agreement on 8 April 1986, and administrative and consultative arrangements are currently being discussed by the Queensland Minister for Health and Environment and myself in order to facilitate improved regional planning and to provide equal access to services for the geographically isolated as well as for other disadvantaged groups. I am considering administrative proposals submitted by the Queensland Minister which will permit a co-ordinated approach to the operation of the program. While initially regional needs may be identified by State Health officials, the Commonwealth is establishing an interim consultative committee (Interim Commonwealth HACC Advisory Committee) which will include representatives of regional groups who will provide essential information and advice. It is expected that the State Government will also establish a similar committee so as to obtain information and advice from a range of sources. As in all other states, funding proposals will be jointly considered by Commonwealth and State Officials before being forwarded to the Queensland Minister for Health and myself for joint approval. (Question No. 1025) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 17 April 1986: (a) Was any information, made public by TVQ 0 and the Courier Mail in March 1986 regarding illegal drug importation to Brisbane in 1984, known to the Australian Federal Police prior to March 1986, concerning the claimed activities of Telecom employees in the Brisbane metropolitan area. (2) Was any of this information forwarded to Telecom, if so, on what date. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provide the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. I am advised that, arising out of a Queensland Police investigation begun in July 1984, the AFP and Queensland Police conducted a joint investigation into the allegations. (2) I am advised by the AFP that Telecom was briefed by the Queensland Police on 11 July 1984. (Question No. 1028) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 17 April 1986: (1) Is there any substance to the claims made by the media and in light of the program on TVQ 0 which dealt with and claimed that an attempt was made to smuggle 12 kilos of heroin in 1984 to Brisbane, Queensland from Lebanon via the Solomon Islands port of entry. (2) What was the result of any investigation undertaken in relation to the matters raised during the broadcasts of TVQ 0 programs. (3) Were any charges laid or any convictions secured. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1)-(3) I am advised that the AFP and Queensland Police conducted a joint investigation into this allegation, beginning in August 1984. The AFP withdrew from the joint operation in September 1984 because three of the principal targets were arrested by the NSW Police in and near Sydney for drug related offences. This occurrence made continuation of the joint operation impractical from the AFP's point of view but the AFP continued to monitor the situation. No further arrests have been made. (Question No. 1077) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Which Department was responsible for the funding and production of the booklet entitled `Record of Government March 1983 to March 1986'. (2) What was the cost of both printing and preparation. (3) How many copies were produced. (4) Who received these copies. (5) What was the purpose of the booklet. (6) Was it necessary. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Sport, Recreation and Tourism, through the National Media Liaison Service (NMLS) (2) $55,148.50 (3) 32,000 (4) Copies were made available to Government Departments, MP's Offices, NMLS offices, the media throughout Australia and were mailed to community organisations and individuals by the NMLS. (5) The booklet was designed to provide a comprehensive and accurate summary of the Government's first three years in office. (6) Yes. (Question No. 1078) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Is it proposed that capital funding for Housing Associations covered by the Central Australian Regional office of the Aboriginal Development Commission be doubled next financial year while recurrent funding is cut back to virtually nothing. (2) Is it also proposed to cut recurrent funding for the Tangentyere Council by over half; if so, how many jobs are expected to be lost as a result of the reduced recurrent funding. (3) How will this affect the development of skills in the Aboriginal communities involved. (4) What steps will be taken to prevent current and anticipated Aboriginal housing from falling into disrepair as it did in the mid-seventies. (5) What benefits under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement are available to Aboriginal Housing Associations whose capital funding has come from the Aboriginal Development Commission, and what benefits are not available. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Commission's financial allocations for Aboriginal housing organisations in Central Australia will be determined by its Board of ten Aboriginal Commissioners in the light of the Commission's General Fund appropriation through the 1986/87 Federal Government Budget. The Aboriginal Development Commission has a general policy of directing funds to the provision of additional housing rather than recurrent expenditure, which should be financed from other sources. (2) and (3) The Commission does not propose to cut recurrent funding for Tangentyere Council in 1986/87. (4) Repairs and maintenance of housing are the responsibility of Aboriginal housing organisations. The Commission expects organisations to collect sufficient rent from their tenants to cover such costs. Where this is not possible, the Commission is prepared to consider the provision of financial assistance. (5) Aboriginal housing organisations receive capital funding from State and Territory Housing Authorities under CSHA, to build houses in locations where the State or Territory Authority does not itself construct or purchase houses. State and Territory Housing Authorities provide only capital funding to Aboriginal housing organisations, and no specific allocation is made for the administrative costs of maintaining the housing organisation. (Question No. 1079) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen the report on outworking in the clothing industry prepared by the Centre for Working Women. (2) Has the growth of outworking been at the expense of organised factory work, and does it represent unfair competition against those employers prepared to obey industrial awards and fair working and safety standards. (3) Does the practice of outworking depend on the avoidance of minimum legal wage and conditions standards by employers and the exploitation of workers. (4) Has this practice been used especially amongst ethnic communities who may be less aware of proper Australian labour practices. (5) Does the secrecy associated with the practice of outworking encourage taxation fraud. (6) Does the stated policy of the Liberal Party to ``deregulate'' the labour market amount to the encouragement to employers to adopt similar practices designed to reduce working standards and place unfair competition on established and reputable employers. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I have seen the Report, ``Women Outworkers'', of the Centre for Working Women Co-operative Limited referred to in the honourable senator's question, and I commend its authors for providing some insights into the working lives of women outworkers, whose own voices are rarely heard. The Government has for some time been concerned about the growth of home-based employment practices in a variety of industry sectors. In particular, the working conditions of outworkers, as well as other employment issues relating to the clothing industry which have become apparent during the Industry Assistance Commission's inquiry into the textile, clothing and footwear industries, are being monitored by officers of my Department. I might add, however, that the social context in which outwork is performed and the legal complexities inherent in the situation do not make the task of resolving the problem of outwork an easy one. (2) There is little in the way of consistent reliable data on the extent and mode of operation of outworking in Australia, nor of the casual effects of the practice on manufacturers and makers-up who observe their legal obligations. Evidence, in the form of estimates by people thought to be well placed to make such judgements, varies considerably. For example, the lowest estimate of the number of clothing outworkers is 10,000 and was made by the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Council Ltd. A leading clothing manufacturer and retailer, Katies, estimated there to be 30,000, while the NSW Clothing Makers Association put the number as high as 60,000. The Clothing and Allied Trades Union's judgement based on these estimates, is that there would be no less than 30,000 and no more than 60,000 and tends to indicate numbers between 30,000 and 40,000 as being probable. I am aware, through correspondence with the Confederation of Apparel Manufacturers, that there is concern about unfair competition from outworking. That association is in full accord with the Clothing and Allied Trades Union in seeking to have the area properly regulated. (3) Unregulated outwork continues to exist and expand despite the limits determined by Federal and State awards and State legislation. Furthermore, the scope of the jurisdiction under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 for making awards in relation to outworkers has not been conclusively clarified. In an early case, the High Court held to be invalid an award prohibiting employers from having work done by independent contractors outside their factory or workshop, unless that person was the holder of an outdoor-worker's permit, on the grounds that a dispute between an employer and employee about such a matter was not a dispute about an ``industrial matter'' within the mean of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. (R v The Judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court & Ors; Ex parte Cocks v Ors (1968) 121 (LR 313). More recent High Court decisions have taken a more flexible view on what constitutes an ``industrial matter'' which can be heard by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This has prompted the Clothing and Allied Trades Union to seek a variation to their award which is currently before the Commission. In the meantime, because of the confused state of the law, neither the Union nor the Arbitration Inspectorate has been able to effectively secure award prescriptions. (4) Many outworkers are immigrant women of non-English speaking backgrounds and are, therefore, often unaware of any legal entitlements they might have (for example, under the terms of the Victorian Accident Compensation Act 1985 or the NSW Workers Compensation Act 1926) or for other reasons unable to avail themselves of such entitlements. Again, however, specific and comprehensive evidence is difficult to obtain. (5) Clearly, insufficient regulation and policing of outwork practices can result in fraud and exploitation. Moreover, unregistered outworkers usually receive under-award pay, work in poor conditions, and do not have the benefits of sickness pay, holidays, maternity leave, penalty rates, workers compensation and the like. (6) While the specifics of operation of the Opposition's industrial relations policy are open to conjecture, it leaves little doubt that the Opposition would reinforce the present system whereby outworkers as ``independent contractors'' would have no effective recourse to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That system has been described by the Apparel Manufacturers Association and others as constituting unfair competition for those employers who are prepared to abide by the spirit as well as the letter of award prescriptions. Continuing efforts are being made by various bodies and my own Department to regularise outworking practices and to obtain the necessary data for a proper assessment of the situation. The Victorian Department of Labour (in consultation with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Clothing and Allied Trades Union and the Victorian Trades Hall Council) has under review possible legislative changes for consideration by the Victorian Government. The Women's Directorate in the NSW Department of Industrial Relations, in co-operation with the NSW Ethnic Affairs Commission, is presently conducting a survey on outworkers in that State. Also in NSW, a tripartite Committee to Inquire into the Status of Women in Employment in Commerce and Industry, established by the Minister for Industrial Relations and chaired by Ms K. Spooner of the NSW Institute of Technology, will examine outwork, unpaid work, commission selling and award-free areas of work. The Committee is expected to report later this year. The International Labour Organisation has scheduled for next year the third Tripartite Technical Meeting on the Clothing Industry. Although the draft agenda makes no specific reference to outwork, it is expected that the issue will be discussed in the context of employment in, and training for, the industry. The National Labour Consultative Council's Committee to Examine Aspects of the Multicultural Workforce has addressed the outwork question in its examination of employment issues relevant to immigrant women. These deliberations are on-going. The Departments of Labour Advisory Committee's Working Party on Women in the Labour Force has collected information on outwork in the various States and intends to draw together these findings and make recommendations. In my own Department, the Women's Bureau monitors the expansion of outwork, collects literature and data, and examines the socio-economic factors which lead women to accept this kind of employment. (Question No. 1080) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of comments attributed to rural consultant Mr Bob Pattison of ACIL Australia Pty Ltd to the effect that talk of a ``rural recession'' could be artificially depressing the price of good rural properties. (2) Does much of the politically inspired talk of disaster serve only to reduce the confidence of financial institutions and investors in our vitally important rural sector at a time when lending and investment support is most needed by farmers. (3) Does this ``talking down'' of rural land prices hit hardest at small farmers who are in most need of support. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am aware of an article by Mr John Hurst published in the Financial Review of 7 May 1986 which reports comments made by Mr Bob Pattison of ACIL Australia Pty Ltd on the depressing effect talk of a ``rural recession'' could have on the price of rural land. I am also cognisant that the Prime Minister's country task force in May 1986 reported that farmers were finding that land values had fallen below the long term trend line because expectations were that the short term future in farming was bleak. The task force blamed ``gloom and doom proponents'' for creating this pessimistic outlook. (2) While many farmers are currently facing very difficult circumstances due to poor international trading conditions, the Government believes Australia's primary industries are versatile and adaptable and generally face a sound future. Loose talk of a crisis does nothing to help agriculture as a whole and particularly those farmers currently facing poor prospects. Instead it may reduce the confidence of financial institutions in rural sector investments at a particularly critical time. I have had a number of discussions with the banks, which are the major providers of credit to the rural sector. They have assured me that they understand the nature of the rural sector and are willing to be as accommodating as possible in meeting its needs. I would hope other investors share this view. (3) The Economic Planning Advisory Council's paper ``The Medium-Term Outlook of the Rural Sector'' (Jan. 1986) warns that falling land values are adversly affecting equity levels in some areas. Farmers experiencing the most difficulty in paying their debts and remaining viable in the current situation are those with low incomes and low equity. Both large and small farmers may find themselves in this situation. (Question No. 1089) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: Have funds been, or will funds be allocated for the purpose of educating both the general public and children in the correct use of ``School Zones'' traffic areas. Senator Gietzelt —The following response has been provided to the honourable senator's question: Measures to educate the public were funded from normal Departmental appropriations. However, a comprehensive program was undertaken when legislation to introduce school zones into the A.C.T. was gazetted in September 1985, and included the following- the legislation was explained on the Police 7 television program, and in The Canberra Times `Police Column' there was a Ministerial media release on 30.8.85 and reported in The Canberra Times 31.8.85 large posters were displayed at shopping centres and at schools explanatory letters were sent to all school principals explanatory letters were prepared for distribution to parents through the schools. Copies of these letters were forwarded to the A.C.T. Schools Authority for placement in its bulletin so that the matter would reach teachers and Parents and Citizens Associations. On a regular basis, but particularly round the time of term commencement, special media publicity is given to school zones. (Question No. 1092) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: What post-registration or post-graduate courses are available to nurses in Australia in relation to (a) tertiary institutions; and (b) hospitals. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) The post-graduate courses available to nurses in tertiary institutions in Australia are: Master of Applied Science (Nursing) Master of Applied Science Master of Nursing Administration Graduate Diploma in Nursing Studies (Education) Graduate Diploma in Education (Nursing) Graduate Diploma in Midwifery Bachelor of Applied Science in: (i) Nursing Science-education, administration; (ii) Nursing-education, management, community health, psychiatry, gerontology, clinical, midwifery; (iii) Advanced Nursing-administration, education, community health, advanced clinical, midwifery. Bachelor of Nursing Diploma of Applied Science in: (i) Nursing Unit Management; (ii) Nursing Management; (iii) Clinical Nursing Studies; (iv) Community Nursing; (v) Community Health Nursing-gerontology, child health, mental health, remote area nursing; (vi) Nursing Education; (vii) Nursing; (viii) Nursing Studies; (ix) Psychiatric Nursing. Diploma in Teaching (Nursing). Associate Diploma in: (i) Clinical Nursing Studies; (ii) Community Health Nursing-infant and child care, occupational health, mental health, gerontology (b) Post-graduate courses available to nurses in hospitals in Australia are: Accident and Emergency care Acute Care Advanced clinical Nursing Advanced Nursing Cardiothoracic and Coronary Care Child Health Communicable Diseases Critical Care Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Nursing General Nursing Geriatrics Intensive Care and Coronary Care Middle Management Midwifery Mental Retardation Neonatal Paediatrics Neurology and Neurosurgery Oncology Operating Theatre Ophthalmic Orthopaedics Paediatrics Plastic Surgery Psychiatry Renal and Transplant Stoma Therapy Ward and Unit Management Sterilization and Infection Control Whilst these post-graduate courses are offered at various tertiary institutions and hospitals at the present time, some are under review due to the transfer of basic nurse education to tertiary colleges over the next few years. (Question No. 1094) Senator Chaney asked the Minster representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) Does the Government record pregnancy terminations, both spontaneous and non-spontaneous; if so, how many spontaneous and non-spontaneous pregnancy terminations have occurred in each State over the last 3 years. (2) What number have been funded in part or in full by Medicare and under what categories have they been funded, for each State over the last 3 years. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) My Department does not directly record spontaneous and non-spontaneous pregnancy terminations. No information is available on numbers of spontaneous pregnancy terminations. However, certain statistical data held by my Department do relate to services resulting in non-spontaneous pregnancy terminations for which Commonwealth Medical or Medicare benefits have been paid. (No information regarding such services is routinely collected for medical services provided either free of charge in public hospitals, or to Repatriation beneficiaries, or to defence personnel, or to health centres operating under special grants, such as health program grants, or other arrangements whereby Medicare benefits are not payable). The Medicare Benefits Schedule items considered most relevant to non-spontaneous termination of pregnancy, are items 274, 275 and 6469. The descriptions of these items are: (i) 274-Induction and Management of Second Trimester Labour (service rendered other than by a specialist in the practice of his specialty to a patient who has been referred to him). (ii) 275-Induction and Management of Second Trimester Labour (service rendered by a specialist in the practice of his specialty to a patient who has been referred to him). (iii) 6469-Evacuation of the contents of the gravid uterus by curettage or suction curettage (not covered by item 6460/6464). (Note: Item numbers 6460 and 6464, referred to above, relate to curettage of the uterus, including for incomplete miscarriage. An unknown proportion of services claimed under these numbers would include the latter circumstances, and services where the objective was to terminate pregnancy, would be incorrectly claimed under these items. Additionally, item number 6508, hysterotomy and uterine myomectomy, may be used in rare circumstances for late terminations of pregnancy for medical reasons. For these reasons, statistis have been included only for items 274, 275, 6469). The total number of services for which benefits were paid for these items by State for the financial years 1982-83, 1983-4, 1984-85 and for the first six months of 1985/86 are as follows: Financial Year State Item Number 274 275 6469 1982-84 NSW Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. U/OS Aust. 27 32 6 3 12 1 . . 81 189 198 46 68 60 12 . . 573 19 952 10 188 2 115 1 498 4 811 316 35 38 915 1983-84 (Pre-Medicare) NSW Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. U/OS Aust. 17 21 5 10 9 2 . . 64 118 159 25 50 34 5 . . 391 15 712 7 138 1 789 1 047 3 325 244 36 29 291 1983-84 (Medicare) NSW Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. U/OS Aust. 6 4 1 1 1 1 . . 14 54 43 12 27 8 2 . . 146 9 466 5 004 1 793 447 2 290 100 4 19 104 1983-84 (Total) ... 78 537 48 395 1984-85 NSW Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. U/OS Aust. 22 28 6 2 13 . . . . 71 159 176 32 75 47 12 . . 501 28 308 14 089 4 618 1 617 6 152 359 35 55 178 1985-86 (July '85- Dec '85) NSW Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. U/OS Aust. 11 1 6 2 2 . . . . 22 80 79 30 35 17 4 . . 245 14 759 7 103 2 286 698 3 154 200 18 28 218 Note: (i) A proportion of the incidence shown may be for services other than termination of pregnancy. (ii) NSW includes ACT and NT. (iii) U/OS-undefined or overseas services. (iv) The periods relate to date of processing of the claim, and not to date of services. (v) For periods prior to the commencement of Medicare, Commonwealth Medical Benefits were not payable for uninsured patients from 1 September 1981 and therefore any such services are not included in the above statistics. (2) All the services referred to in the above tables have attracted benefits under either the Medicare arrangements, if rendered from 1 February 1984, or the Commonwealth Medical Benefits arrangements if rendered prior to this date. (Question No. 1098) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 28 May 1986: (1) What was the total cost to the Department of Communications for advertising relating to the government's proposal to shift Wollongong television station WIN-4 from VHF to UHF transmission? (2) What was the cost of all newspaper advertising? (3) What was the cost of all radio advertising? (4) What was the cost of all television advertising? (5) What was the cost of printing and delivery of brochures to householders within the WIN-4 viewing area? (6) Were any consultants outside of the Department employed; if so- (a) who was employed; (b) for what purpose; (c) what fee(s) were involved; and (d) was any fee outside of the initial quotation. (7) Were any visits made to the WIN-4 viewing area by department employees; if so- (a) what was the cost of each employee's travel expenses; (b) what was the cost of each employee's accommodation expenses; and (c) what was the duration of each visit. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) $9,991.49 (2) $3,975.93 (3) Nil (4) Nil (5) $6,015.56 (6) Consultants were not employed by the Department of Communications. (7) There were four visits made by employees of the Department of Communications to the WIN viewing area, three to discuss with WIN management the proposed move of WIN-4 from VHF to UHF and one to attend a public meeting on UHF. A publicity campaign was also undertaken to promote the introduction of SBS to Wollongong on UHF, but the costs associated with this are not included in this answer. (a) (i) $41.90 for the hire of a car; (ii) $41.90 for the hire of a car; (iii) $249.40, one return flight to Sydney; (iv) $87.48 for the hire of a car. (b) $156.65 travelling allowance as the officer who attended the public meeting was required to stay overnight. (c) The duration of each of the visits was for one day except for one which was an overnight visit. (Question No. 1099) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 May 1986: (1) Can the Treasurer explain why there is such a heavy sales tax applied to Aboriginal artefacts. (2) Can the Minister advise whether the sales tax also applies to the 3-ply wood imitation Aboriginal artefacts such as boomerangs, which are imported to Australia from South Korea. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Goods manufactured in Australia are subject to sales tax unless they are specifically exempted from the tax. Goods which are exempt from sales tax are listed in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. Aboriginal artefacts such as boomerangs, spears, did-geridoos and stone axes are not specifically listed in the First Schedule and, when made for sale as souvenirs, they are manufactured goods of a taxable class. The rate of tax applying to Aboriginal artefacts of these kinds is 20%. However, I have been informed by the Commissioner of Taxation that in the majority of cases artefacts made by Aboriginals for sale as souvenirs qualify for exemption under one of the items in the First Schedule applicable to small manufacturers, particularly item 100. Item 100 provides exemption for goods manufactured and sold by a person where the average annual value of that person's sales of all goods does not exceed $12,000. (2) Three-ply wood imitation Aboriginal artefacts such as boomerangs, imported into Australia from South Korea, are subject to sales tax at the rate of 20%. (Question No. 1101) Senator Hill asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) How many field staff does the Department of Social Security presently have in South Australia. (2) What are the numbers of field staff employed by the Department for each month since January 1983, in South Australia. (3) How many designated field staff are presently employed on office duties rather than in the field. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) As at the end of May 1986, 56 field officer staff were employed in South Australia. (2) 1983 Jan. 50; Feb. 62; Mar. 56; Apr. 54; May 62; June 61; July 63; Aug. 71; Sept. 72; Oct. 70; Nov. 71; Dec. 72. 1984 Jan. 75; Feb. 68; Mar. 68; Apr. 65; May 65; June 58; July 57; Aug. 60; Sept. 63; Oct. 62; Nov. 58; Dec. 59. 1985 Jan. 60; Feb. 61; Mar. 57; Apr. 57; May 55; June 56; July 56; Aug. 56; Sept. 60; Oct. 58; Nov. 55; Dec. 53. 1986 Jan. 56; Feb. 54; Mar. 56; Apr. 53; May 56. (3) Nil. (Question No. 1102) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 May 1986: (1) Has a call been made by the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland, published in the Brisbane Courier Mail of 27 May 1986 for harsher penalties to be imposed on people who neglect to wear seat belts in cars. (2) In what percentage of fatal accidents were the victims of vehicle crashes identified as having failed to wear seat belts in the years 1984 and 1985. (3) What are the current maximum penalties for failure to wear seat belts in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, and is any consideration being given to increasing them. (4) Is consideration being given to a Federal Government sponsored education campaign to encourage people to wear their seat belts. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) This information is not available for Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. For the remaining States the combined figures are: 1984-19% of vehicle occupants killed were not wearing a seat belt. In a further 17% of cases, it was not known whether a seat belt was being worn. 1985-18% of vehicle occupants killed were not wearing a seat belt. In a further 16% of cases, it was not known whether a seat belt was being worn. (3) In the Australian Capital Territory, the current maximum penalty for failure to wear a seat belt is $80.00. In the Northern Territory, the current maximum penalty for failure to wear a seat belt is $20.00. This is currently under review. (4) As part of the Government's ongoing road safety public education activities, the Federal Office of Road Safety produces materials promoting seat belt wearing. In late 1985, the publication ``A Simple Guide to Child Restraint Use'' was mailed to maternity hospitals and child care centres throughout Australia. Consideration is being given to making available foreign language versions of this publication in 1986/87. In addition, the highly successful ``Out and About'' child safety program, which promotes restraint wearing, will be extended in 1986/87. (Question No. 1106) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 May 1986: (1) What were the levels of fatal road accidents in Australia in the years 1984, 1985, and in the March quarter 1986, in view of figures produced by the Federal Office of Road Safety that more than 45,000 people are destined to die on Australian roads before the year 2000. (2) Of these fatalities, how many were-(a) drivers, (b) passengers, (c) motor cyclists, (d) cyclists, (e) pedestrians and (f) by-standers. (3) How many in percentage terms of each of these groups were medically established to have had blood alcohol levels above the legal limitations at the time of the accidents that killed them. (4) What measures are being taken, or being contemplated, to convince States which have not yet introduced random breath testing by the police of the drivers of motor vehicles, to do so, and is any uniform legislation in prospect. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) the number of fatal road crashes were: 1984, 2500; 1985, 2627; March quarter 1986, 658. The number of fatalities resulting from these crashes were: 1984, 2822; 1985, 2937; March quarter 1986, 746. (2) the fatalities above are broken down by road use categories as follows: 1984 1985 March Quarter 1986 Drivers ... 1036 1152 283 Passengers ... 756 762 211 Motorcycle riders ... 346 355 98 Motorcycle passengers ... 44 45 11 Pedal cyclists ... 90 84 28 Pedestrians ... 541 536 114 Other ... 9 3 1 Total ... 2822 2937 746 (3) In 1984, 37% of drivers, 34% of motorcycle riders and 33% of pedestrians killed and tested for blood alcohol concentration were known to have had an alcohol level in their blood above the legal limits applying at the time. Figures for 1985 and 1986 are not yet available. (4) Random Breath Testing (RBT) has been introduced into all States and Territories except Queensland and Western Australia. The Government continues to support the implementation of RBT into all States and Territories because of the known road safety benefits. These benefis are illustrated in the following table, which compares the drink driving involvement for Queensland and Western Australia with that in Victoria and New South Wales where RBT has been successfully adopted. Year Percentage of drivers and motorcycle riders killed with BAC* over 0.05gm/100ml (where BAC is known) NSW Vic. Qld WA 1981 ... 41 38 50 48 1982 ... 40 35 48 51 1983 ... 36 38 47 1984 ... 33 35 44 40 * Blood Alcohol Concentration (Question No. 1107) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) Is there any researched reason to believe Australia is being swamped by migrants who are not assimilating, and has the Federal Government put any program in place to monitor this aspect of migration policy, in view of remarks made on 27 May 1986 by Sir Colin Hines, New South Wales President of the Returned Services League, that Sydney suburbs dominated by single ethnic groups are a threat to the traditional Australian lifestyle. (2) What is the present level of co-operation and research into assimilation problems between the various ethnic groups, the organisations that represent them and the Federal Government. (3) What are the latest figures of individual ethnic communities now living in Australia. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are no data known to my Department which would support the view that Australia is being swamped by migrants who are not assimilating nor, for that matter, that migrant numbers are too large. Migrants continue to make a positive contribution to Australian society. In any event, assimilation is an outdated concept. The Government's multicultural policies recognise the right of ethnic communities to retain their cultural traditions. Migrants for their part, have obligations to abide by Australian laws, live in consonance with the Australian way of life and learn English. This dual process encourages and facilitates integration into our multicultural society, and the development of understanding, tolerance and mutual respect between all of its members. For this reason, no programs are operating or planned to monitor the extent or rate of ``assimilation'' to any posited ``norm''. The comments attributed to Sir Colin assume the existence of one ``traditional Australian lifestyle'', which ignores the fact that geographic and social as well as ethnic and cultural diversity have been a feature of Australian society virtually from its inception. While some suburbs in some cities may have an identifiable ethnic character, this also is a continuing feature of the immigration process. Newcomers naturally find comfort and practical assistance in settling initially near other people from the same background. As they become established in Australia, their geographic mobility and their economic and employment profile takes on similar patterns to those of the host society. It is an ongoing process that does not pose a threat to our national character or our Australian social systems. (2) The level of cooperation between ethnic community structures and their members and the Federal Government remains high. Consultation by means of public or representative meetings about matters of concern takes place as necessary, and Ministerial and official meetings with advocacy organisations such as the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia, it's affiliates, and Ethnic Affairs Commissions regularly explore issues of inter and intra-community relations and other relevant matters of note. A considerable number of research and review projects have been and continue to be undertaken on the settlement of migrant groups and immigration categories, both by government and academic institutions. A recent survey done for the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs and presented at its National Research Conference in May 1986 dealt with inter-group attitudes and behaviour in Adelaide. This survey showed a clear majority of Australians who were willing to have migrants integrate into Australian life while maintaining their old cultural traditions. (3) I refer you to Australian Bureau of Statistics bulletin, released in October 1985, entitled ``Estimated Resident Population by Country of Birth and Sex: Australia, June 1983 and 1984''. The data contained in this bulletin are too extensive to be reproduced in Hansard. (Question No. 1109) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 May 1986: (1) Is the United States Government in the process of installing a nuclear-capable structure underground 17km out of Woomera in South Australia, if so, what is the function of this building. (2) What is the nature of its alleged nuclear capacity. (3) Why has the Australian public not been kept informed of these developments. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. The US, however, is involved in the construction of extensions to the Joint Defence Space Communications Station at Nurrungar which is about 14km south of Woomera. (2) The extension is only to provide better accommodation for both Australian and US staff working at Nurrungar and for the equipment that is housed there. The construction work does not mean any change in the function of the Station. (3) The public was informed of this project in a news release issued by the Minister for Defence on 21 October 1985, and the Minister subsequently spoke about it in the Parliament on 15 November 1985. (Question No. 1110) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: What were (a) the vessels name; (b) the type and class designation; (c) whether or not the vessel was nuclear powered; (d) the port visited; and (e) the dates and length of the visit, in respect of the United States Navy submarines and warships which visitied Australia between 1 January 1985 and 29 May 1986: Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The following table sets out the information requested: USS SHIPS VISITS TO AUSTRALIA 1 JAN. 1985-29 MAY 1986 Ship Type Class Port Dates (a) Nuclear Powered Warships 1985 USS Indianapolis Submarine (SSN) Stirling 30 Jan.-7 Feb. USS Pody Submarine (SSN) Darwin 11-17 Mar. USS Texas Cruiser (CGN) Hobart 16-20 Apr. USS Texas Cruiser (CGN) Brisbane 24-29 Apr. USS Carl Vinson Aircraft Carrier (CV) Fremantle 19-25 Apr. USS Puffer Submarine (SSN) Stirling 3-9 May USS California Cruiser (CGN) Stirling 19-24 July USS Jacksonville Submarine (SSN) Stirling 16-22 Sept. USS Lapon Submarine (SSN) Stirling 31 Oct.-7 Nov. USS Portsmouth Submarine (SSN) Stirling 21-27 Dec. 1986 USS Tautog Submarine (SSN) Stirling 29 Jan.-4 Feb. (b) Non-Nuclear Powered Warships 1985 USS Buchanan Destroyer (DDG) Sydney 4-8 Mar. USS John Young Destroyer (DD) Sydney 4-8 Mar. USS Buchanan Destroyer (DDG) Brisbane 15-18 Mar. USS John Young Destroyer (DD) Brisbane 15-18 Mar. USS Hewitt Destroyer (DD) Fremantle 19-26 Apr. USS Downes Frigate (FF) Bunbury 19-26 Apr. USS Leahy Cruiser (CG) Fremantle 19-26 Apr. USS Roanoke Replenishment ship (AOR) Fremantle 19-26 Apr. USS Ingersoll Destroyer (DD) Albany 19-26 Apr. USS Kiska Ammunition ship (AE/T-AE) Stirling 19-26 Apr. USS Gridley Cruiser (CG) Geraldton 19-26 Apr. USS Niagara Falls Stores ship (AFS) Stirling 7-13 May USS Constellation Aircraft Carrier (CV) Fremantle 19-24 July USS White Plains Replenishment ship (AFS) Fremantle 19-24 July USS Camden Oiler (AO) Fremantle 19-24 July USS Crommelin Frigate (FF) Fremantle 19-24 July USS Passumpsic Oiler (AO) Fremantle 19-24 July USS Worden Cruiser (CG) Fremantle 19-24 July USS Fanning Frigate (FF) Geraldton 19-24 July USS Callaghan Destroyer (DDG) Bunbury 19-24 July USS Towers Destroyer (DDG) Geraldton 13-19 Sept. USS Midway Aircraft Carrier (CV) Fremantle 13-19 Sept. USS Reeves Cruiser (CG) Fremantle 13-19 Sept. USS Cochrane Destroyer (DDG) Fremantle 13-19 Sept. USS Kirk Frigate (FF) Fremantle 13-19 Sept. USS Oldendorf Destroyer (DD) Fremantle 13-19 Sept. USS San Jose Oiler (AO) Fremantle 13-19 Sept. USS Mispillion Oiler (AO) Fremantle 13-19 Sept. USS Kansas City Oiler (AO) Fremantle 13-19 Sept. USS Knox Frigate (FF) Geraldton 13-19 Sept. USS Kilauea Replenishment ship (AE/T-AE) Stirling 13-19 Sept. USS England Cruiser (CG) Albany 14-19 Sept. USS Durham AMP/cargo ship (LKA) Geraldton 18 Sept.-1 Oct. USS Fort Fisher AMPH/landing ship (LSD) Stirling 18 Sept.-1 Oct. USS Cleavland AMPH/transport ship (LPD) Fremantle 18 Sept.-1 Oct. USS Okinawa AMPH/assault ship (LPH) Fremantle 18 Sept.-1 Oct. USS Hassayampa Oiler (AO) Fremantle 18 Sept.-1 Oct. USS San Jose Oiler (AO) Fremantle 21 Sept. USS Brooke Frigate (FF) Darwin 21-23 Sept. USS Reid Frigate (FF) Darwin 21-23 Sept. USS Reid Frigate (FF) Cairns 27 Sept. USS Brooke Frigate (FF) Cairns 27 Sept. USS Brooke Frigate (FF) Sydney 1-8 Oct. USS Reid Frigate (FF) Sydney 1-8 Oct. USS Reid Frigate (FF) Brisbane 17-21 Oct. USS Brooke Frigate (FF) Brisbane 17-21 Oct. USS Brooke Frigate (FF) Brisbane 22 Oct. USS Chauvenet Survey ship (AGS) Darwin 4-8 Nov. (Question No. 1111) Senator Sibraa asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: Is the Trade Commission Authority considering reallocating the Johannesburg Trade Commission to Harare in Zimbabwe, following the closure of the Trade Commission post in Johannesburg, South Africa, in September 1985, leaving the only Australian Trade Post for all of Africa in Nairobi, Kenya; if not, why not. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No. The Trade Commission post in Nairobi will remain the sole trade post in Sub-Saharan Africa. North Africa is covered by the Trade Commissioner posts in Algiers and Cairo. Due to the limited resources available to the Australian Trade Commission it is not proposed to open a second post in Sub-Saharan Africa at this stage. (Question No. 1120) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) What payments, by way of aid, were expended in the Philippines for each of the years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, for (a) military; (b) civil construction; (c) agricultural; (d) cultural; (e) educational; (f) scientific; (g) trade union; and (h) food aid purposes, and the yearly total of all aid. (2) Will the Government give consideration to funding the development of democratic institutions in the Philippines and in particular to the encouragement of democratic trade unions, in view of the recent establishment of democratic government in that country. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The following table sets out Australia's bilateral official development assistance (ODA) to the Philippines for the financial years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 in relation to the categories of assistance you specified, apart from defence. The 1985-86 figures are not yet available. Australia does not give ODA to the Philippines for military purposes. Australia and the Philippines maintain a Defence Cooperation Program (DCP) for which the Minister for Defence is responsible. None of the Australia/ Philippines DCP activity is, however, classified as ODA. AUSTRALIAN BILATERAL ODA TO THE PHILIPPINES BY SECTOR OF DESTINATION 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 (A$'000) (A$'000) (A$'000) Civil Construction ... 172 38 - Agriculture ... 1,284 1,657 1,022 Cultural ... 3 1 1 Education ... 1,694 1,514 3,730 Scientific (not elsewhere included) ... 154 58 134 Trade Union ... - - 4 Food Aid ... 965 963 1,083 In Addition to the above: Regional Development Zamboango del Sur ... 5,978 4,763 4,273 Northern Sama ... 4,034 5,780 7,532 Manufacturing Industries National Coal Logistics ... 1,485 993 484 Emergency Distress Relief ... - - 250 Other Sectors ... 938 1,760 1,786 TOTAL BILATERAL ODA ... 16,707 17,527 20,299 Source: Statistics Section, ADAB. (2) The Australian Government has welcomed the measures taken by the Aquino Government to restore democratic institutions in the Philippines, including a commitment to respect for human and political rights. A Constitutional Commission, which will draft a new constitution, began its deliberations on 2 June. The Australian Government attaches importance to the development of trade unionism in a democratic framework. In 1984-85 the Government contributed $4,000 to training provided by the Trade Union Training Authority (see above Table). During his visit to the Philippines from 23 to 29 June, Mr Hayden offered additional access to training programs in Australia for Trade Union officials from the Philippines, possibly within the context of our aid program. President Aquino expressed interest. It is not the policy of the Australian Government, however, to impose political conditions on the aid it provides to the Philippines and other developing countries. Australian aid is not designed to change the political systems of recipient countries. Rather, Australia gives aid primarily for humanitarian reasons to alleviate poverty through economic and social development. By contributing to the social and economic advancement of the people of the Philippines, including the poorest and most deprived sectors of the community, the Australian Government believes its aid will play a positive role in the reform process. (Question No. 1125) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 30 May 1986: (1) Has the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council increased its interview rate by 56 percent over a 5 year period and is now in the position of having long waiting lists for its services, particularly in underfunded country towns. (2) What special provisions are being made to put greater emphasis on funding of counselling services to prevent marital breakdown. (3) Has the Attorney-General taken action to implement the recommendation of the National Marriage Guidance Council in conducting a comprehensive inquiry into Government policy affecting marriage support services. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The statistical returns lodged by the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council up until and including the 1984/85 year indicate that the interview load of the agency increased by 57 percent between 1980/81 and 1984/85 and the Council has reported that it has long waiting lists. The Council being an autonomous body is reponsible for the allocation of funds to its various country branches from the income it receives from Commonwealth grants and contributions from clients. (2) The marriage counselling organizations which are approved and receive financial assistance under the Family Law Act 1975 provide a counselling service directed to assisting people entering, living within or leaving marriage to resolve interpersonal difficulties affecting their relationships. One of the consequences of this work can rightly be claimed to be the prevention or marital breakdown and the increase in 17 percent in Commonwealth funding to the organizations in 1985/86 is indicative of the support of Government for the services provided. (3) In order that I may be in a better position to decide whether I should lend support to an inquiry as suggested, I have asked the Institute of Family Studies to include in its research program a project to measure the role and effectiveness of marriage counselling and education. The Institute plans to conduct the study during 1986/87. (Question No. 1126) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 30 May 1986: (1) What approaches, if any, has the Queensland Government made to seek funding assistance in providing refresher courses for registered nurses. (2) Has the question of ``substantial contribution'' by the States in reaching agreement on funding arrangements with the Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations been explained to the Queensland Minister for Health; if so, has any commitment, tentative or otherwise, been given by Queensland to participate in this Commonwealth initiative. (3) What response is given to the matter of the Queensland Department of Health working in co-operation with the private health industry and the Queensland Nurses' Union of Employees in developing the availability of refresher courses to encourage registered nurses to return to the nursing workforce. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Queensland Government approached the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in March 1986 for discussions concerning Commonwealth assistance for nurse refresher training. (2) Yes. The question of ``substantial contribution'' by the States was clarified in a letter I sent to the Queensland Minister for Health earlier this year and was also explained to senior officers of the Queensland Department of Health by officers of my Department. It is anticipated that Queensland will submit a proposal to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in the near future. (3) The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations welcomes proposals aimed at encouraging registered nurses to return to the workforce. There is no in-principle objection to the Queensland Department of Health developing refresher course proposals in co-operation with the private health industry. Any such proposal would be considered in light of established guidelines and it is expected that the Queensland Nurses' Union would have been actively involved in the course development process. (Question No. 1127) Senator Morris asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 30 May 1986: Can the Minister for Education advise for each year of the 1984-86 triennium the amounts paid under the Computer Education Program to: (a) each school in New South Wales (b) the New South Wales Department of Education; and (c) any other educational body. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (a) Grants for computer education are made available under the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act and primarily support system-based not school-based programs in the government and non-government sectors in each State. Information is not readily available on how much each school in New South Wales receives under the Computer Education Program. These amounts are allocated following recommendations by the NSW Government Schools Computer Education Co-ordinating Committee and the NSW Non-government Schools Computer Education Co-ordinating Committee. (b) The Education Department of New South Wales has been allocated the following amounts under the Computer Education Program during the 1984-86 triennium: 1984-$1,597,000 1985-$1,662,000 1986-$1,728,000 In the Government sector the allocation of grants within Commonwealth guidelines is the responsibility of the State Department of Education on the advice of the Government Schools Computer Education Co-ordinating Committee. (c) The non-government education sector in New South Wales has been allocated the following amounts under the Computer Education Program during the 1984-86 triennium: 1984-$348,000 1985-$362,000 1986-$379,000 Allocations of grants for system initiatives which fall within Commonwealth guidelines are prepared by the Non-government Schools Computer Education Committee for approval by my delegate. (Question No. 1129) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 30 May 1986: Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations advise the type and cost of assistance given under the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme to each recipient in New South Wales and the details of each business established by the recipients. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: All participants in the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme (NEIS) in New South Wales receive assistance as follows: (a) The Commonwealth Government provides income support payments for 12 months at the rate of $150 per week (married rate) or $80 per week (single rate) a six-week full-time training course in small business skills. Costs to 13 June 1986 amounted to $101,406 in course costs and $72,782 in training allowances (b) the State Government provides assessment of business proposals for potential viability a loan/grant of up to $14,000 for sole traders and $28,000 for partnerships on-going counselling in the management of enterprises, including visits. Details of the type of business and extent of assistance to new enterprises approved to participate in NEIS to 13 June 1986 are set out in the table below: Type of Business Loan Grant $ $ Ceramic tiling ... 5,000 1,700 Correspondence games ... 9,500 2,100 Used goods ... 10,000 1,600 Worm farm ... 10,000 2,000 Pest control ... 10,000 2,400 Beautician ... 10,000 3,000 Band booking agency ... 10,000 3,000 Video productions ... 10,000 3,425 Gardening ... 9,500 4,000 Video equipment repairs ... 10,000 3,500 TV antenna service ... 10,000 3,700 Souvenir manufacture and sales ... 10,000 3,700 Rehearsal studio ... 10,000 3,845 Fibreglass articles ... 10,000 4,000 Computer bureau ... 10,000 4,000 Chemical manufacture ... 10,000 4,000 Golf driving range ... 10,000 4,000 Model and photographic agency ... 14,000 3,000 Martial arts ... 13,500 3,500 Electric fans and lights ... 20,000 4,700 Vehicle spare parts ... 20,000 5,000 Car wreckers ... 20,000 5,200 Comic publishing ... 20,000 5,500 Vinyl floor coverings ... 20,000 7,000 Hobby shop ... 20,000 8,000 Muffler manufacture ... 20,000 8,000 Medieval displays ... 20,000 8,000 Indian restaurant ... 20,000 8,000 Craft shop ... 10,000 3,100 Electronic services ... 10,000 3,100 Electron microscope service ... 10,000 4,000 Greeting cards design ... 20,000 4,000 Wooden gifts and toys ... 20,000 8,000 Photographic services ... 10,000 3,400 Fibreglass products ... 20,000 7,100 Pattern books and needlework kits ... 20,000 4,600 Recording studios ... 20,000 4,200 Riding academy ... 10,000 4,000 Electrical contractors ... 10,000 4,000 Motor replacement parts ... 20,000 6,000 Truck body manufacture ... 10,000 4,000 Indian restaurant ... 20,000 8,000 Electrical contractors ... 10,000 3,900 Screen printed fabrics ... 20,000 4,000 Apiary ... 10,000 2,350 Car detailing ... 10,000 4,000 Turkish food bar ... 10,000 4,000 Kebabs and Persian style foods ... 20,000 8,000 Import and manufacture jewelry ... 20,000 5,500 Souvenirs ... 20,000 6,500 Home improvements ... 10,000 4,000 Removalist ... 20,000 3,500 Aid for the disabled-wheelchair manufacture ... 10,000 3,000 Welding service ... 10,000 4,000 Garden maintenance ... 7,500 2,200 Agricultural machinery ... 10,000 4,000 Retail shoe sales ... 10,000 2,000 Camping and walking tours ... 15,000 5,000 Clothing manufacture ... 20,000 7,200 Soya milk production ... 20,000 7,300 Educational video tapes ... 10,000 3,600 (Question No. 1131) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 June 1986: (1) What are the names of ships which have been invited to take part in the Royal Australian Navy's 75th anniversary Fleet Assembly in Sydney Harbour at the end of September, 1986. (2) What dates will they be there. (3) What type and class of ship are they. (4) Which country are they from. (5) Which other ports in Australia will they be visiting, what dates and which ships. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (5) The Chief of Naval Staff has invited ships from the United Kingdom, United States of America, New Zealand, Canada, France and Papua New Guinea to be represented at the RAN 75th Anniversary Naval Assembly in Sydney Harbour. Details requested are shown in the following tables: Table A SHIP VISITS TO SYDNEY-NAVAL ASSEMBLY AND REVIEW Ship Class Dates in Sydney A. United Kingdom HMS ILLUSTRIOUS... Light Aircraft Carrier 29 Sept.-13 Oct. HMS BEAVER... ``Broadsword Class'' Frigate 29 Sept.-13 Oct. HMS AMAZON... ``Amazon Class'' Frigate 29 Sept.-7 Oct. HMS MANCHESTER... ``Sheffield Class'' Destroyer 29 Sept.-7 Oct. RFA BAYLEAF... Support Tanker 29 Sept.-7 Oct. RFA FORT GRANGE... Fleet Replenishment Ship 29 Sept.-13 Oct. RFA OLMEDA... ``OL Class'' Fleet Tanker 29 Sept.-13 Oct. B. United States of America USS BLUE RIDGE... Amphibious Command Ship 29 Sept.-7 Oct. USS OLDENDORF... ``Spruance Class'' Destroyer 29 Sept.-7 Oct. USS PAUL F. FOSTER... ``Spruance Class'' Destroyer 29 Sept.-7 Oct. USS MISSOURI... ``lowa Class'' Battleship 1-6 Oct. 1986 C. Canada HMCS YUKON... ``Mackenzie Class'' Frigate 29 Sept.-7 Oct. HMCS QU'APPELLE... ``Mackenzie Class'' Frigate 29 Sept.-7 Oct. HMCS SASKATCHEWAN... ``Mackenzie Class'' Frigate 29 Sept.-7 Oct. D. New Zealand HNMZS CANTERBURY... ``Broad-Beamed Leander Class'' 29 Sept.-7 Oct. HNMZS SOUTHLAND... ``Leander Class'' Frigate 29 Sept.-7 Oct. E. France FNS COMMANDANT BLAISON ``A69 Class'' Frigate 2-7 Oct. 1986 Table B SHIP VISITS TO OTHER AUSTRALIAN PORTS Ship Port Date A. United Kingdom HMS BEAVER HMS AMAZON Darwin 12-15 Sept. 1986 HMS AMAZON... Cairns 18-22 Sept. 1986 RFA FORT GRANGE... Mackay 18-23 Sept. 1986 HMS ILLUSTRIOUS... Brisbane 19-24 Sept. 1986 HMS BEAVER RFA OLMEDA Newcastle 22-25 Sept. 1986 HMS AMAZON HMS MANCHESTER Geelong 9-13 Oct. 1986 RFA BAYLEAF... Melbourne 9-13 Oct. 1986 HMS AMAZON... Encounter Bay 18-19 Oct. 1986 HMS BEAVER HMS AMAZON HMS OLMEDA Adelaide 23-27 Oct. 1986 HMS ILLUSTRIOUS HMS MANCHESTER RFA BAYLEAF RFA FORT GRANGE Fremantle 25-30 Oct. 1986 B. Canada HMCS YUKON HMCS SASKATCHEWAN HMCS QU'APPELLE Brisbane 25-27 Sept. 1986 HMCS YUKON HMCS SASKATCHEWAN HMCS QU'APPELLE Melbourne 9-13 Oct. 1986 C. France FNS COMMANDANT BLAISON... Hobart 10-14 Oct. 1986 Port Adelaide 21-27 Oct. 1986 D. New Zealand HMNZS SOUTHLAND... Brisbane 19-24 Sept. 1986 HMNZS CANTERBURY... Cairns 19-22 Sept. 1986 (Question No. 1135) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 June 1986: Has the Minister's department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible made available any grants or funds to any trade union body or related organisation in financial years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86; if so- (a) who received those funds; (b) for what purpose; (c) what amounts were involved; and (d) when were these funds granted or given. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In the period 1983-86, the Department of Defence has provided six grants to trade union and related organisations. In financial year 1983-84, the Combined Union Shop Committee at Williamstown Dockyard was granted $3,184 to engage research consultants to assist the committee on reform progress at Williamstown Dockyard. In financial year 1984-85 the Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union was granted $3,000 (in conjunction with a grant of $3,000 from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations) to conduct a Key Union Leaders' Workshop on Industrial Democracy. Two organisations received funding for research officers associated with activities arising from the Government Aircraft Factories Implementation Steering Committee. The Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees (ADSTE), received $16,176 in financial year 1984-85 and $64,705 in financial year 1985-86 and the Trade Union Training Authority (TUTA) was granted $22,951 and $20,071 in financial years 1984-85 and 1985-86 respectively. (Question No. 1138) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 June 1986: Has the Minister's department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible made available any grants or funds to any trade union body or related organisation in financial years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86; if so- (a) who received those funds; (b) for what purpose; (c) what amounts were involved; and (d) when were these funds granted or given. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes, a grant was made by my Department: (a) to the Australian Council of Trade Unions (b) to employ and train an Aboriginal trade union liaison officer in aspects of industrial relations relevant to Aboriginal communities throughout Queensland (c) $47,000 (d) $12,000 was provided on 28 April 1986 with the remainder of the grant to be paid in 1986/87. (Question No. 1146) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: Can the Minister advise of the biological control agents (a) approved; (b) refused; and (c) under consideration for release pursuant to the Biological Control Act 1984. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) The only biological control agents approved for release pursuant to the Biological Control Act 1984 are: Ceutorhyncus geographicus (Echium weevil) Ceutorhyncus larvatus (Echium weevil) Longitarsus aeneus (Echium flea beetle) Longitarsus echii (Echium flea beetle) Dialectica scalariella (Echium leaf-mining moth) Dictyla echii (Echium bug) Dictyla nassata (Echium bug) Phytoecia coerulescens (Echium stem-boring beetle) These agents could result in control of species of Echium which are declared target species pursuant to the Biological Control Act 1984. (b) No biological control agents have been refused release pursuant to the Act. (c) No biological control agents are currently under consideration for release pursuant to the Act. (Question No. 1147) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: What amount of moneys have been spent by Federal and State Governments in projects in any way related to uranium mining in each of the last 10 years in Australia. (See answer to Question on Notice No. 1015, Hansard, 30 May 1986, p. 3131.) Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Commonwealth has certain responsibilities concerning the regulation of uranium mining in Australia. The resources used in meeting its obligations, which include rehabilitation of old mines, are spread over a range of Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities and, because of the diversity and independence of their functions, it is not practicable to prepare details of expenditure related specifically to uranium mining incurred by each of them. However, expenditure relating to uranium mining which has been incurred by the following specific organisations and functions has been identified to the extent possible and is set out below. These amounts would, I believe, account for the bulk of the Commonwealth's direct expenditure in this area. I am not aware of the amount of money expended by State or Northern Territory Governments on uranium mining. COMMONWEALTH EXPENDITURE ON URANIUM MINING ($000) Year Australian Atomic Energy Commission1 Office of the Supervising Scientist2 Australian Uranium Export Office Uranium Advisory Council Northern Territory Regulatory Services3 Rehabilitation of former mine sites in Northern Territory Purchase of uranium from Queensland Mines Ltd 1976-77 ... 1,101 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1977-78 ... 593 85 . . . . . . . . . . 1978-79 ... 17,580 1,994 164 26 15 . . . . 1979-80 ... 60,365 1,681 308 59 3,256 . . . . 1980-81 ... 28,562 3,034 363 88 3,073 . . . . 1981-82 ... . . 4,046 298 78 . . 200 . . 1982-83 ... . . 5,981 284 NA . . 810 . . 1983-84 ... . . 4,502 222 . . . . 5,340 . . 1984-85 ... . . 4.744 . . . . . . 7,690 6 1985-86 (est.) ... . . 6,500 . . . . . . 4,444 43,000 Notes 1. Expenditure by AAEC which has been identified as being directly related to uranium mining, including its share of the Ranger project between 1978 and 1981 (see note below). 2. The activities of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region are not entirely directed towards uranium mining. However, only the total expenditure of the Office of the Supervising Scientist is available. 3. Payments for NT Regulatory Services were absorbed into tax sharing arrangements with the Northern Territory in 1981/82. The proceeds from the divestment by AAEC of its uranium interests in Ranger and Ngalia Basin in 1980/81 plus dividend and capital repayments from Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd have exceeded its expenditure on uranium mining. In addition to the AAEC being reimbursed for its expenditure on the Ranger project, the Commonwealth received a further $146 million in respect of the sale of its interests in the Ranger project in 1979/80. Payments, by the Commonwealth for the Ranger Assessor, to the Northern Territory in lieu of uranium royalties and to the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account are recovered from the mining companies and are not a net cost to the Commonwealth. (Question No. 1177) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister for State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: Has the National Crime Authority examined the matters covered in recommendation 10 009 of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union concerning the provision of the data base (excluding material derived from taxation records) to the Australian Federal Police, the Victorian Police Force and the Victorian Commissioner of Corporate Affairs; if so, does the National Crime Authority support the views expressed by Mr Costigan in this recommendation; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The National Crime Authority has informed me that the database compiled by the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union has since been substantially modified in line with the operational needs of the Authority. The Authority has examined the needs of other law enforcement agencies for access to the material on its database pursuant to paragraph 11 (1) (a) of the National Crime Authority Act 1984. On-line access is not provided, but material (including data originating from the Costigan Royal Commission database) is being passed to the relevant authorities in three ways, viz: (a) upon direct request for specific information; (b) following a decision by the Authority to refer an investigation or information to another agency, rather than investigate further itself; and (c) as investigations are concluded, material is passed to the relevant prosecuting authority. In deciding against on-line access, the Authority took into consideration the need for security, particularly as regards information supplied to the Authority on a confidential basis by law enforcement agencies and others, and the importance of minimising the circulation of untested criminal intelligence. (Question No. 1179) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) What action has the Government since taken to improve waterfront security and the existing arrangements for the security of air cargo as the Government promised in its response to recommendation 10 015 of the Costigan Royal Commission on the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. (2) Is the Government now satisfied, in the light of recent importation of drugs and other illegal substances, that the recommendation should be carried out; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The matter of waterfront security is one for joint Commonwealth and State consideration. The Australian Police Ministers' Council (APMC) has examined both the Costigan recommendation and the report of the Joint Task Force on the Security of Wharves and Containers. In May 1986 the APMC resolved to establish separate State Port Security Committees to carry out functions determined according to each State's needs. The heads of each Committee will meet as necessary to discuss matters of national concern and to provide a forum for development of national policies. The Victorian Government has already established the Victorian Port Security Advisory Unit as an intelligence and information gathering agency. The matter of air cargo security is under review by a Central Steering Committee chaired by the Department of the Special Minister of State and comprising the Department of Aviation, the Australian Customs Service, the Australian Federal Police and State and Northern Territory police forces. (Question No. 1181) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 1986: What is the estimated number of illegal immigrants currently in Australia. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The estimated number of illegal immigrants in Australia at 31 October 1985 (the latest date for which data is available) was 50,000. The estimate was based on the computerised matching of post-1980 arrival and departure passenger card records with adjustments to take account of grants of residence status, extensions of stay, pre-1980 and clandestine arrivals, and computer matching errors. (Question No. 1182) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 6 June 1986: (1) How many hawkers licences were issued for the months of April and May 1986. (2) For what purposes were the licences sought. (3) What policing is carried out to ensure all hawkers are licensed. (4) How many hawkers have been found to be operating without a licence during the months of April and May 1986. Senator Gietzelt —The following response has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (1) 13 hawkers' licences were issued during the months of April and May 1986. (2) Licences were issued for the following purposes: Category No. of Licences Food only ... 5 Food and other goods ... 5 Other goods ... 3 These are the only categories provided for under the Hawkers Ordinance. Two of the ``other goods'' licences were requested for the selling of flowers. (3) Enforcement of the Hawkers Ordinance is undertaken by the Australian Federal Police and the Registrar of Hawkers' Licences subject to other commitments. (4) During April and May 1986 eleven unlicensed hawkers were noted and warned by the Registrar that they were operating illegally. In addition, two licensed hawkers were warned for standing in excess of a half hour without a permit. (Question No. 1183) Senator Collard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 June 1986: (1) Was it stated in the Journal of the Institution of Engineers of 7 March 1986, by Stan Schaetzel that Hawker De Havilland (HDH) provided a fixed price bid of $184.1 million to cover completion of the development program, certification and delivery of 69 aircraft to the RAAF as well as the private development of the A20 aircraft. (2) Was the competing bid from Pilatus $240 million for the PC9; if so, was this $55.9 million greater than the Australian aircraft. (3) Why was the HDH bid increased by some $86 million when a fixed price bid of $184.1 million was offered (including the development of the A20) causing the Pilatus offer to become apparently $30 million cheaper. (4) What sort of guarantee has been given by Pilatus to the Australian Government with regard to meeting the rated 8,000 hr fatigue life stipulated by the RAAF. (5) Is this relevant when indications are that the PC-7 and PC-9 do not have the fatigue life when operated under the environment in the RAAF as required by the A10B Specifications. (6) Is the PC-9 Pilatus an advanced, high performance trainer (not a basic trainer), overlapping the current Macchi syllabus to a large degree, and not particularly suitable for basic primary training. (7) How can the Minister for Defence endorse the resultant 3 trainer aircraft fleet, with all its associated maintenance/spares/specialised personnel, when the much cheaper A10B was originally designed to do all the work of the CT-4 and some work of the Macchi jet trainer. (8) How did the Minister derive the claimed $20 million yearly saving by buying the Pilatus PC-9 when the project has already cost the Australian taxpayer $94 million and a three (3) aircraft fleet will be far more expensive to maintain that the original Australian A10B/Macchi two aircraft fleet. (9) What specific elements of the PC-9 will be re- designed and developed in Australian conditions if the Labor Government continues to buy this Swiss aircraft. (10) Why isn't the PC-9 Pilatus simply replacing the CT-4 primary trainer aircraft as would have happened had the Minister authorised the continuation of the much cheaper Australian designed and built A10B basic training aircraft. (11) Is the Swiss PC-9 too dangerous for first up pilots to fly and does it not have adequately designed under-carriage to meet the strength requirements of a high sink rate landing normally associated with first up pilots during basic training (Refer Interavia 7/1985). (12) Why is the Minister trying to make the Australian Industry pay for the hardware purchased and produced during the A10B project, when the Department of Defence and the Labor Cabinet has scrapped the whole project. (13) To what extent and value specifically has the Minister insisted that the Pilatus provide work for the considerable design teams, as consolidated by the Australian Aerospace Industry Companies (AAC) and the HDH, given that the envisaged Pilatus projects will concern mainly production personnel with very little Australian Design Engineering input. (14) Will the PC-9 Pilatus undergo modifications, so as to meet any of the original RAAF specifications so rigidly enforced on industry with the A10B trainer, such as: (a) rough field capability and not just grass field capability as proposed by the Minister. (b) Environmental Control System to cope with prevailing Australian weather conditions. (c) birdstrike proof windscreen. (15) If modifications are going to occur, is the Minister insisting that they be carried out by Design teams in Australia and not in Switzerland by the Swiss as indicated by the RAAF Director-General of the Trainer Project Air Commodore Bob Kee in the Australian Aircraft magazine of February 1986. (16) Will a full set of jigs for Pilatus PC-9 be made in Switzerland and shipped out to Australia as indicated by Air Commodore Bob Kee and Minister for Defence. (17) Could these jigs be made in Australia if the PC-9 aircraft goes ahead. (18) Is the Minister still insisting that this work arrangement for the Australian Aerospace workers is being adhered to. (19) How is the RAAF able to claim that the Pilatus PC-9 is able to be used for weapons training in the future when Swiss federal law forbids Swiss companies from selling equipment to outside countries that can be used for war or training for war. (20) Why were the three (3) partner companies in the AAC allowed to spend many costly manhours perfecting many of the complex systems required by the original A10B specification (formerly Wamira), in full and constant collaboration with the RAAF, when that same specification was then immediately relaxed and ignored (by the RAAF) when the PC-7 and PC-9 were included in the selection process. (21) How did the Minister and the RAAF arrive at the figure of $20 million per year quoted as potential savings by the introduction of the PC-9, with regard to the current RAAF training philosophy. (22) If, as indicated by the RAAF and Auditor-General, the Minister was aware of the cost and schedule overruns on the A10B project (formerly Wamira), why did he not step in earlier to get the project back ``on the rails'' as HDH did in mid to late '85, and thereby save this important National project. (23) Did the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) state in ``Flight International, Jan. '86'': ``Government has an important role to play in the creation of a secure policy frame-work that will facilitate growth''; if so, how can the Minister for Defence defend this statement, when he was instrumental in effectively killing the Industry's design; capability by aborting the A10B and A20 projects. (24) How will the Government and in particular the Minister reconcile these additional costs in primary training, when the PC-9, as an advanced aircraft, will itself cost vast sums to adopt it to existing RAAF usage. (25) Did the Minister claim in the Defence Industry Newsletter (22 January 1986) that offset programs could offer a considerable amount of additional design work. (26) Is the indigenous design content effectively zero and manufacturing will not employ large numbers of Australian workers as the A10B/A20 combination project would have, particularly in the Design and Development field. (27) Why is the Minister and RAAF urgently wanting to bring the PC-9 into service particularly when Australian Industry showed through testing in 1985 that the CT-4 has a conservative life extension through until 1995 and the Macchi until 2000. (28) Why doesn't the Minister stop the PC-9 purchase in the light of (27) above and save the Government at least $270 million and authorise the following steps to get the Australian Aerospace Industry back into developing what they do well, that is, design, development and manufacture of aircraft and aircraft systems. (29) Will the Minister give consideration to: (a) restarting the A10B project only to the original requirement of building, testing and flying the (4) four A10B aircraft. (b) spending the money saved on the PC-9 on the immediate start of (4) four P-3 AEW aircraft in conjunction with Lockheed Aircraft Company. (c) spending the money saved on the PC-9 on the immediate start to fitting out the fleet of 707 RAAF transport aircraft for the flight refuelling in support of F/A-18 and F-111 aircraft. (30) Is the Minister's statement in Defence Industry Newsletter 22 January 1986 that ``all that was left on the A10 as regards design work was fine tuning'' and ``only required 680 hours work including flight testing'' misleading. (31) Will $94 million be wasted unless the testing on the A10B is completed and the Design is verified. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In his article published in the Journal of the Institute of Engineers on 7 March 1986, Mr Schaetzel stated that ``HDH provided a fixed-price bid of $184.1 million to cover the completion of the development program, certification and delivery of 69 aircraft''. HDH also indicated that, should the Commonwealth elect to proceed with the A10B aircraft, the Company would fund the development of the A20 as a private venture. (2) The estimated total project cost for the Pilatus PC-9 was $240 million and this was some $30 million less than the estimated total project cost for the Australian aircraft. (3) The HDH bid for completion of the A10 was not increased. However, that bid of $184.1 million did not represent the total project cost, which always includes the cost of support necessary to place the aircraft in service. (4) In its formal tender to the Australian Government Pilatus has guaranteed an 8000 hr fatigue life for the aircraft. (5) The guarantee provided by Pilatus recognises the RAAF operating environment in the same way as did the A10 specification, and the RAAF has no indications of inadequacies. (6) The PC-9 is a Basic Trainer which, although possessing a higher performance than that of the A10, is nonetheless suitable for basic primary training and has been so assessed by specialist RAAF flying instructors. (7) A three trainer aircraft fleet (CT-4/PC-9/Macchi) will not necessarily be more costly in operating and overhead costs than would have been the A10B/Macchi combination, and noting that one new aircraft is to be introduced in both cases, the overall cost of training will depend upon the distribution of flying hours between the three aircraft (the CT-4 being cheaper to operate than the PC-9 and the PC-9 cheaper than the Macchi). In this regard a major advantage of the PC-9 derives from its higher performance and flexibility within the training system. (8) See the previous answer. The savings achieved by comparison with the present arrangements or the previously proposed A10B/Macchi combination would depend upon the number of flying hours that could be transferred from the Macchi to the PC-9 while retention of the CT-4 would allow that much cheaper aircraft to be used for the early stages of the flying training syllabus. The actual savings to be achieved will depend upon the pilot throughput and on the distribution of flying hours between the three aircraft types. That saving could amount to some $20 million annually. Expenditure achieved against the Australian design has been limited to $74 million. The project cost estimates for completion of the A10B and for the PC-9 excluded this cost as ``sunk'' to give the A10B the best chance for continuation. This figure is not relevant to the question of savings to be made in the pilot training system through introduction of the PC-9 aircraft. (9) There will be no significant re-design of the PC-9 for Australian use. However the aircraft will be fitted with low-pressure tyres to permit operation from grassed surfaces. That modification is relatively minor and will be developed by Pilatus. (10) See answers (2) to (8). (11) See answers (6) and (9). (12) The Commonwealth has transferred, free of charge, the design rights for the A10 to Hawker de Havillands. The Hardware that was acquired and produced at the Taxpayers' expense during the A10 project is Commonwealth property and the Government cannot merely turn it over to Australian industry free of charge. The Commonwealth has, however, agreed to dispose of those items and hardware to industry at a very nominal cost. We understand these conditions are entirely acceptable to the industry. (13) The terms of the Commonwealth's invitation to Pilatus to tender for licensed manufacture of the PC-9 required that Company to provide opportunity for Australian industry to participate in collaborative design and development work. Pilatus has honoured that obligation and has made an offer to Australian industry to join in the design and development of a new aircraft on a 50-50 cost sharing basis. It will be for industry to decide whether or not it takes up that offer. (14) See answer (9) above. However, such modifications were assessed at the time of the evaluation of A10B and PC-9 costs to provide a more equitable basis of comparison. (15) See answer to (9). (16) and (17) The intention of HDH and the Commonwealth is that to the maximum extent possible, jigs and tooling for the PC-9 will be made in Australia. It is recognised that the scale of the production might not warrant local manufacture of some small numbers of special tooling, in which case these would be acquired from Pilatus. (18) Yes, presuming the arrangement referred to is that outlined in my press statement 205/86 dated 16 December 1985. (19) Swiss Federal Law would not prevent Australia from using the PC-9 for weapons training for its own purposes. (20) The original Wamira A10 project was based on assessments that benefit would flow from the Australian aerospace industry demonstrating that it could design and develop an aircraft to Military Specifications and from the export potential of some of the features of the aircraft. While it was recognised that this would involve a cost premium it was not until the design was well advanced that the likely full extent of that premium became apparent. The relaxation of specifications for the trainer completion was of benefit to the HDH A10B as well as the PC-7 and PC-9. (21) See (8) above. (22) When it became apparent in late 1984 that the trainer program was exceeding the expected cost and was falling behind schedule by a considerable amount, the Government took action. In seeking ways of allowing the project to proceed during the period to December 1985, the Government took full account of its importance. (23) The quotation from Flight International January 1986 is accurate and the position stated is supported by the Minister for Defence. The Government does not accept the assertion that in terminating the A10 project it was effectively killing the industry's design capability. (24) See answers (2) to (8) above. (25) Yes, and the recent helicopter contracts support that view. (26) Noting answer (9) above, there is very little indigenous design content in the PC-9. Manufacturing workload however will be comparable to that promised by the A10 noting that significant components of both aircraft are imported (eg engines, avionics) and subject to offsets. Note also answer (13). (27) The Government and the RAAF wish to introduce the PC-9 as early as possible in order to achieve the potential for savings in operating costs through relieving the Macchi jet trainer of much of its workload and thereby extending the service life of that aircraft. (28) See answers above. (29) (a) No. (b) and (c) those projects are being examined on their merits for priority in the Defence program. (30) No. (31) No. (Question No. 1191) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 11 June 1986: (1) When will the Department of Community Services introduce realistic benefits for disabled couples living independently in the community. (2) What is the future of the National Attendant Care Program. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Government is aware of the need to provide a realistic level of support for people, who require help if they are to be able to remain living in their own homes. In 1984/85 the Government introduced the Home and Community Care Program (HACC) which aims to provide a comprehensive range of basic maintenance and support services to frail aged and disabled people of all ages living in the community, as well as their carers, in order to help maintain their independence and to prevent their premature admission to long term residential care. A wide range of services can be provided under the HACC Program including home nursing, home help and paramedical services. HACC services are to be provided within the community by State Government organisations, local government or non-profit community organisations. In addition, my Department currently pays domiciliary nursing care benefits in recognition of the additional costs experienced by relatives in caring for other relatives, who may include disabled couples in the home. The current rate of $42 a fortnight per person cared for is paid to approved persons who choose to care at home for chronically ill or disabled relatives aged 16 years or over who would otherwise require admission to a nursing home. It was never intended to cover the full cost of home care but rather to provide a degree of recognition and financial assistance for approved persons providing such care. (2) This is a matter for consideration in the forthcoming budget. (Question No. 1193) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 11 June 1986: (1) How will the Department of Health respond to a recent report by Dr Allan Forbes of the United States Food and Drug Administration which is reputed to confirm that sugar is harmless. (2) Has the Department of Health sought copies of his report which has found that there is- (a) no conclusive evidence that dietary sugars were an independent risk factor for heart disease; (b) no evidence linking sugar consumption to gallstone; (c) no unique role for sugar in making people overweight; and (d) no evidence that sugar intake contributes to hypertension. (3) When will the Health Department assess these findings and amend its literature accordingly. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Officers of my Department see no need to respond to the recent paper by Dr Allan Forbes of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since this was a review of an earlier report, the conclusions of which they are in agreement with-namely that sugar (sucrose) is a safe ingredient for incorporation into foods, but that at high levels of intake, especially as part of snack-type foods, it may pose a hazard to dental health. (2) Yes. My Department has sought a copy of Dr Forbes' full paper. At this time it is not yet available. Preliminary advice received from FDA in Washington is as follows: Dr Forbes' paper was presented at a meeting in the United Kingdom. It is a review of an earlier FDA report which looked at sugar in the American diet from a regulatory point of view. This earlier report was an evaluation, conducted on behalf of FDA, of the safety aspects of sucrose as a food additive or ingredient. It was published in 1976. For regulatory purposes, sugar (sucrose) was given GRAS-that is Generally Recognised As Safe-status. This status has been reaffirmed since then. The FDA report considered sugar in this safety context only. (3) The Department of Health has already assessed Dr Forbes' observations and sees no need to amend its literature. It has never claimed that (a) dietary sugars are an independent risk factor for heart disease; (b) there is evidence linking sugar consumption to gallstones; (c) there is a unique role for sugar in making people overweight; or (d) sugar intake contributes to hypertension. The Department of Health, like its counterparts in the United States and many other countries, will continue to recommend that overall sugar consumption in Australia be reduced-especially as a component of `snack' foods and beverages. Excessive intake (levels consumed by many Australians) is a contributing factor to (1) the development of dental caries, (2) the displacement of more nutritious foods which significantly reduces intake of essential minerals and vitamins and (3) the development of overweight in many individuals. (Question No. 1194) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 11 June 1986: (1) Is the future success of the Federal Government's Aged Care Program, Home and Community Care, being placed in serious jeopardy because the Queensland Government is refusing to allow equal participation of community organisations in advising on priorities for its implementation. (2) What steps can the Minister for Community Services take to guarantee that aged care services initiated through the Home and Community Care Program will be delivered on the same basis in Queensland as in every other State. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) One of the principles of the Home and Community Care Program is joint Commonwealth/State decision making in consultation with service providers and users. The Commonwealth wishes to see mechanisms established which give service providers and users an effective on-going role in assessment of priorities and identification of existing services. The Queensland Government signed the Home and Community Care Agreement on 8 April 1986, and administrative and consultative arrangements are being discussed between the Queensland Minister for Health and the Environment and myself. These arrangements, which include the role of service providers in implementing the Home and Community Care Program, will be jointly agreed by the State and the Commonwealth. (2) In Queensland, as in all other States/Territories applications for grants will be assessed against priorities under the Program, their relative merits and funds available. Joint approval of projects to receive funding will be given by the State Minister and myself. Day-to-day administration of the Program will be the responsibility of the State Government under agreed program guidelines. (Question No. 1197) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 11 June 1986: (1) Is as disclosed to Senate Estimates Committee E on 17 September, 1985, the 800 short tons of uranium yellowcake purchased by the Commonwealth Government from Queensland Mines, in lieu of its being sold to France, currently stored in galvanised drums with only tarpaulins as a protective cover. (2) Will the Government give an assurance that this inadequate and potentially dangerous storage of uranium yellowcake be investigated and changed, given the response of the particular public servant, who was being questioned, that ``there is not a great deal of experience as yet in keeping such material in drums in that environment''. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The uranium concentrates purchased from Queensland Mines Ltd (QML) are stored at the Nabarlek mine within a locked compound located inside QML's storage compound. The concentrates are contained in steel drums coated with a protective paint inside and out to meet contractual specifications. The drums are stacked on pallets with sufficient room between them for adequate ventilation and the stack of drums is covered with a tarpaulin for additional protection from the weather. (2) The response referred to by the Honourable Senator indicated that the integrity of the drums and their contents should be maintained for at least five years. The packing and storage of the concentrates has been inspected by an officer of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission on behalf of the Commonwealth and the arrangements were found to be satisfactory. Moreover, the stack and its drums are subject to regular inspection by the Australian Safeguards Office to ensure that the material meets the requirements of that Office as far as its physical safety and condition are concerned. (Question No. 1198) Senator Zakharov asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 11 June 1986: What proportion of Australian exports is carried in Australian flag vessels. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am advised that according to the Shipping and Air Cargo Commodity Statistics compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics the proportion of Australian exports which was carried on Australian flag vessels in 1984/85 was 3.00% by weight and 5.01% by value. (Question No. 1203) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 11 June 1986: (1) Do the sliding doors at Brisbane International Airport pass by a steel wall support when they open. (2) Is it possible when the doors open that a person standing close to the sliding glass panel beside the doorway could be struck with great force and injured. (3) Has the Minister for Aviation been made aware of an incident which occurred recently when a small child who had crawled up to the sliding glass panelling adjacent to the doors was in danger of being crushed. (4) Does the Minister agree that a clear warning of the danger should be permanently displayed. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) While the possibility did exist for the doors to come in contact with a person, no great force was involved. (3) A complaint was made in writing to the Airport Director by the father of a 10 month old child, that on 11 April 1986 his daughter ``came close to being crushed by the sliding airport doors''. His is the only report received on the incident. (4) As a result of the report, action has been taken to reduce the length of travel of the automatic doors, to provide positive door stops and also to attach warning notices. (Question No. 1205) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 June 1986: (1) Were there reports in The Canberra Times on 22 and 26 May 1986 that 2 Royal Australian Air Force Hercules aircraft; 2 Iroquois helicopters and, later, 2 Royal Australian navy heavy landing craft were despatched to assist in the aftermath of the recent cyclone in the Solomons. (2) What was the total deployment from the Australian Defence Force for the assistance task. (3) Why were the 2 landing craft needed. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There were reports in the Canberra Times on 22 and 26 May 1986 that two RAAF Hercules aircraft; two Iroquios helicopters and, later, two RAN heavy landing craft were dispatched to assist in the aftermath of the recent cyclone in the Solomons. (2) The Australian Defence Force disaster relief contingent comprised the following: a. HMAS STALWART. b. HMAS FLINDERS. c. HMAS BETANO. d. HMAS BRUNEI. e. two RAAF utility helicopters. f. one RAAF Caribou transport aircraft. g. a nine-man Army water purification team, and h. a five-man Army water testing team. The ADF relief effort also included nine C130 transport flights between Australia and Honiara to ferry relief supplies. (3) The two landing craft were used primarily to supply fresh water to outlying islands, and also for the landing over the beach of building materials and food supplies to remote communities. (Question No. 1212) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 13 June 1986: How many scientists and engineers are employed by the department and its instrumentalities. Senator Button —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: As at 1 July 1986 my department and its instrumentalities employed two scientists and fifty-one (51) engineers in positions designated as requiring those qualifications. There are in excess of 100 other employees with qualifications in engineering and science who have substantive positions in other designation, principally those designated as Clerical Administrative. (Question No. 1214) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 12 June 1986: How many scientists and engineers are employed by the department and its instrumentalities. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Joint Coal Board 1 Scientist 9 Engineers Australian Atomic Energy Commission 97 Scientists 47 Engineers Pipeline Authority 21 Engineers Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority 42 Engineers Department of Resources and Energy Central Office 9 Scientists Division of National Mapping 2 Engineers Bureau of Mineral Resources 198 Scientists 8 Engineers (Question No. 1215) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 12 June 1986: How many scientists and engineers are employed by the department and its instrumentalities. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Within my portfolio the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (Worksafe Australia) employs 32 people in positions with ``Science'' classifications. Four engineers are employed in the portfolio, all with Worksafe Australia. (Question No. 1219) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 13 June 1986: What action has the CSIRO taken to concentrate its resources in accordance with the priorities set down in the booklet `Shaping the Future'-A Strategy for CSIRO 1985-90. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Concentration of Resources Concentration of CSIRO research effort on topics of greatest importance and promise is being achieved through the introduction of formal corporate planning procedures. Division and Institute plans are drawn up in consultation with potential users and through Divisional advisory committees. The planning process also incorporates measures such as the designation by the Executive of ``growth areas'' based on advice from Institute Directors. These are areas of particular priority to which a special allocation or redeployment of resources is applied. Currently special priority is accorded information technology, generic manufacturing technologies, water resources research, space science and technology, plant diseases and human nutrition. In addition the research areas biotechnology and materials science are protected from resources contraction. Termination or contraction of some programs is necessary in order to release resources for redeployment to higher priority areas. The completed plans are now being brought together in a corporate strategic plan outlining the Organization's research priorities on a sectoral basis. (Question No. 1225) Senator Collard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 June 1986: (1) Is the New Submarine Program predicated on the first new boat going into service in 1991. (2) Is the New Submarine Program on schedule, and will the Oberon boats be phased out according to the announced schedule, or is it now considered that some of the Oberon class boats will need refits because of delays in the New Submarine Program. (3) Will such unbudgeted work, because of delays, be treated as a new expenditure item, or will the costs be debited against the already seriously inflated budget for the new submarine. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. Following the Government's decision to construct all the new submarines in Australia, the Project Definition Study Contractors have been asked to develop proposals for the construction based on the most cost effective delivery schedule, whilst maximising Australian Industry Involvement within the constraints of practicability and cost. The final proposals will be lodged on 11 November this year and only after full evaluation of these proposals would a definite date for delivery of the first submarine be available. (2) The New Submarine Program is on schedule. The Oberon boats will be phased out of service progressively to match the introduction of the new submarines into RAN service. There is no foreseen requirement to extend the life of the Oberons beyond that already planned. (3) No unbudgeted work is presently planned or foreseen for the Oberon Class submarines. The New Submarine Project remains within budget. Senator Grimes —On 29 November 1985 (Hansard, page 2601) Senator Watson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the Government's and the Department of Health's activities in relation to monitoring the use of high technology equipment, particularly the use of the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripter machine. The Minister for Health has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: As ESWL is a treatment for a specific medical condition (upper urinary tract stones) there is considerably less scope for financial abuse and manipulation through over-servicing than with diagnostic procedures. However, as each ESWL unit has an installed capital cost of approximately $3.7 million, and annual running (ESWL) costs of more than $1 million, there is a clear need for control of the technology's proliferation. The National Health Technology Assessment Panel which is made up of representatives from Commonwealth and State governments, the private sector and the medical profession, reported on ESWL in June 1985. It recommended that ``on the basis of current numbers of procedures for upper urinary tract stones, not more than three ESWL machines would be needed for Australia, two of which should be located in Sydney and Melbourne.'' The issue of the siting and numbers of ESWL units has been raised with all State Health Ministers and, in accordance with the recommendations of the NHTAP report, the Commonwealth has offered to contribute toward the capital cost of an ESWL unit in both Sydney and Melbourne. While the Commonwealth's offer has not yet been formally accepted, the New South Wales and Victorian governments are both proceeding with the purchase and installation of an ESWL unit. These two units will be sited in public hospitals and should be operational this year. A medicare benefit of $380 has been established for the professional services associated with an ESWL procedure. The Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia (VHIAA) is considering the provision of a private health fund benefit to cover the non-professional operating costs of private patients who receive ESWL treatment. Hospital Corporation of Australia has established a private ESWL unit at the Charles Wentworth Private Hospital in the western suburbs of Sydney. It is, however, unlikely that proliferation of the technology will occur without the financial support of capital costs either by governments or the private health insurance industry. The Commonwealth government, State governments and the VHIAA have all indicated their support for the NHTAP's recommendations for the planned introduction of this expensive technology. The Department of Health is currently undertaking a review of overall policies relating to the introduction of high cost health technologies to Australia. Senator Walsh —On 13 February 1986 (Hansard, page 265), Senator Parer asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the following question without notice: Is it a fact that the 3 per cent productivity increase included in the accord mark 2 is based on Australian Council of Trade Union determinations? If not, on what basis has the Government determined this increase? How can this figure be predetermined before a case has even been considered by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Does the Government consider that itself and the ACTU are in contempt by pre-empting any decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of a 3 per cent productivity increase which would cost in the order of $4 billion to $6 billion? In my reply, I undertook to refer the question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: No. In August 1985 the Australian Council of Trade Unions lodged a claim with the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission under Principle 2, National Productivity, of the National Wage Principle then in operation, seeking a 4 per cent increase in wages and salaries or conditions of employment. Principle 2 stated: ``Upon application, and not before 1985, the Commission will consider whether an increase in wages and salaries or changes in conditions of employment should be awarded on account of productivity.'' On 4 September 1985, it was announced that the Government and the ACTU had reached an agreement under the Accord to accommodate the effects of the depreciation of the Australian dollar which occurred in early 1985 and to ensure a continuation of wage restraint for a further two years. The agreement provided for a discount of 2 per cent from the wage indexation increases to apply in the February-May 1986 National Wage Case. It also provided for a moderation in the ACTU's productivity claim and that the Government and the ACTU would propose to the Commission that an increase equivalent to 3 per cent of ordinary time earnings be awarded as contributions to occupational superannuation schemes. These proposals were put to the Commission during hearings early in 1986. The advance quantification of claims argued before the Commission in National Wage proceedings is standard procedure and does not pre-empt the Commission's decision in any way. It always remains for the Commission to decide whether any, and if so what, increase should be awarded. On 26 June 1986 the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission handed down its decision on the national productivity/superannuation claim. In view of the present economic circumstances, the Commission decided that productivity growth for the next two years should, as far as possible, be directed towards lowering Australia's inflation rate relative to that of her trading partners. Therefore, it declined to arbitrate to provide for superannuation, as sought by the ACTU's claim, during the life of the current wage fixation principles. However, the Commission noted that negotiations and understandings on superannuation were proceeding in the field and there was considerable merit in the public interest in monitoring and regulating any agreements which might be entered into, and in assisting by conciliation. The Commission also acknowledged that there is some scope to implement the ACTU's superannuation claim. It took the historic step of award prescription of superannuation but favoured this occurring by way of consent between employers and unions. It decided that, pursuant to section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, it will certify agreements or make consent awards which provide for employer contributions to approved superannuation schemes provided that the cost ceiling of a wage increase equivalent of 3 per cent of ordinary time earnings is not exceeded and that employers genuinely consent to the payment. The Commission also decided that no agreement providing for superannuation in accordance with its decision should operate before 1 January 1987 except in special and isolated circumstances approved by the Commission. A special Full Bench of the Commission will control the speed of implementation of the various agreements including the dates of operation in order that the economy does not become overloaded. The Commission also made it a condition for award prescription that superannuation contributions only be made to those schemes which meet the Government's Operational Standards for Occupational Superannuation Schemes, announced by the Treasurer on 11 June 11986. Senator Walsh —On 14 March 1986 (Hansard, page 1089), Senator Jessop asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question without notice concerning the involvement of the company Trojan Owen and Associates Pty Ltd in community employment program projects. I undertook to seek further information from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: Current CEP guidelines make provisions for sponsors to engage consultants to manage their projects. Payment is on a fee for service basis with such fees being met from the sponsor contribution to the project. I am not aware of any instances where Trojan Owen and Associates has received preferential treatment by, or privileged information from, my Department. Project sponsors seeking information about management consultants in South Australia are referred by the CEP Secretariat to a comprehensive register of consultants including Trojan Owen and Associates and a number of other consultants have in fact been used by sponsors. The high level of Trojan Owen involvement in CEP is quite reasonably explained by the company's active role in lobbying sponsors, and its high public profile as a specialist in the management of job creation projects. I am advised that the Department's CEP Management Information System cannot readily identify consultants' involvement in projects. In view of this, the following information has been prepared using the knowledge of the Department's State Office CEP personnel. Their advice is that Trojan Owen and Associates has been involved in 14 approved CEP projects in South Australia, and 6 approved CEP projects in Victoria. Of these projects, 4 commenced under the previous Government's Wage Pause Program and were unable to be completed prior to that Program's completion date. They were subsequently converted to CEP projects. In addition, 3 other projects were approved under the Wage Pause Program and completed with Wage Pause funding. The details sought in relation to CEP projects with which Trojan Owen and Associates have been involved are as follows: Sponsor and Project Title Sponsor Contribution CEP Grant $ $ South Australia Adelaide Central Mission Redevelopment of Mission House... 40,000 541,577 Gerard Reserve Council Yabbie Farm De- velopment Stage 1 *... 164,559 501,148 Stage 2... 80,748 121,550 Royal Society for the Blind Hydro and Kine Therapy Centre *... 94,159 94,613 Memorial Drive Tennis Club Inc Development of Public, Administration and Club Facilities *... Nil 58,947 Kuitpo Colony Inc Redevelopment of Kuitpo Colony *... 147,833 221,473 City of Burnside Redevelopment of Chelsea Cinema... 185,000 342,819 Indoor Sporting Complex... 432,000 1,007,300 District Council of Victor Harbour Indoor Rereation Centre... 450,000 980,513 City of Noarlunga Onkaparinga Estuary Conservation and Development... 150,000 345,407 Onkaparinga Estuary Conservation and Development, Aquatic and Bowls Clubrooms... 330,000 430,350 City of Port Adelaide Linear Reserve Taperoo Beach Development... 344,173 697,559 Port Adelaide War Memorial Development... 63,000 248,300 National Parks and Wildlife Service Conservation and Development of Morialta Conservation Park... 209,923 431,139 Victoria City of Footscray Footscray Swim Centre... 850,000 2,697,151 Development of Nicholson Street Mall... 131,332 314,174 Oval Embankment Stabilisation - Southern End... 22,570 67,105 - Northern End... 32,503 64,115 Sealing of Oval Terracing... 24,071 61,788 Ministry for Planning and Environment Streetscape Dynon Road... 145,870 330,475 * Projects commenced under the Wage Pause Program Senator Walsh —On 1 May 1986 (Hansard, page 2182), Senator Michael Baume asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question without notice regarding the Sydney premises of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Senator Baume asked: What will be the cost in both capital and annual leasing expenses of the proposed move of the Sydney Operations of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission from the AGC Building in the legal centre of Sydney out to new premises at Woolloomooloo? How much has been spent on improvements, renovations and fittings for and what is the leasing cost of the present area now occupied by the Arbitration Commission in Sydney in each financial year of that occupancy? What will be the total cost of the move? Was this move initiated by the Arbitration Commission itself? If not, who did initiate it and what is the attitude of the Arbitration Commission to this forced move to an inconvenient location? In my reply I undertook to convey Senator Baume's question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The capital cost associated with the relocation of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission from the Law Courts Building in Queens Square, Sydney, to new premises at 80 William Street, Sydney, is $6,455,000. The annual leasing cost is $2,714,345. The Law Courts Building is jointly owned by the Federal and State Governments. Accordingly there are no leasing costs. Since the Commission moved there in 1977, no major improvements or renovations have been completed. Fittings formed part of the original construction cost of the building. The total cost of the move comprises the above capital and annual leasing expenses, plus $2,030,000 for furniture and fittings, and stocking the library. The former President of the Commission, Sir John Moore, sought alternative accommodation because of the shortage of accommodation for Members of the Commission in the Law Courts Building. Because of cost considerations, suitable premises could not be found in close proximity to the current premises. Following a detailed evaluation the building currently under construction at 80 William Street was found to be suitable. Some members of the Commission have expressed concern about the proposed location outside the central business district and security aspects associated with the premises. The security matters have now been resolved. Senator Ryan —On 8 May 1986 (Hansard, page 2618), Senator Crichton-Browne asked me a question without notice concerning the time taken to process applications for the tertiary education assistance scheme in the Western Australian office of my Department. I also undertook to investigate the circumstances of a particular case which he mentioned. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: As far as TEAS processing is concerned, most applicants in Western Australia this year would have received their first payment of allowance within three weeks of their applications being received by the Western Australian Office of my Department. Where the application was incomplete or more information had to be obtained by writing to the applicant, processing time was longer, as might be expected. However most cases where this occurred were finalized in less than two months of the application first being received. Processing could take up to three months in some cases, but these would be quite exceptional and would normally be caused by delay on the part of the applicant in furnishing information essential for assessment. Senator Crichton-Browne's Office has provided the Western Australian Office of my Department with the name of the student referred to in his question, and the case has been investigated. That particular application was lodged on 7 March and advice was sent to the student on 21 March that additional information was required before independent status could be approved. The additional information needed was supplied by the applicant on 8 April. Reassessment was initated almost immediately, but it then proved necessary to approach the educational institution regarding course details. The student was finally advised that benefits were approved in a letter dated 24 April. The first payment would have been received at the end of April. The whole process was thus completed in under two months, and did not involve a delay of more than three months as asserted in the Senator's question. Senator Walsh —On 30 May 1986 (Hansard, page 3110), Senator Black asked me a question without notice concerning the reported practice of a Gold Coast-based company which was alleged to have used a system of fines to discipline employees who committed offences such as being late for meetings, saying anything negative and fraternising with employees of the opposite sex. Senator Black asked: Can the Minister say whether abuses of power such as this would be more prevalent under the coalition's industrial relations policy as it includes a system of individual agreements which would be virtually impossible to police? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Enquiries by officers of my Department indicate that the employment practice outlined in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 28 May 1986 has been adopted by the employer concerned. There is no doubt that implementation of the Opposition's industrial relations policy, which contemplates the progressive use of supposed voluntary agreements between employers and employees, initially in enterprises with 50 or fewer employees, would create an environment conducive to the exploitation of those least able to defend themselves as has happened in the case quoted. Employers who wished to profit at the expense of others where competition for available jobs exist would be able to arbitrarily determine work practices and conditions of employment on a take it or leave it basis. The social implications of such a system for our society defy imagination. Capacity exists in the present industrial relations system for the certification by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of memoranda of agreement by the parties to an industrial dispute. The Opposition's proposals regarding supposed voluntary agreements disregard the public policy issues which are comprehended in the use of an orderly system of wage fixation. The fact that an instance such as that quoted can occur despite the mechanisms presently in place highlights what would happen if the conditions of employment relationships were based on a free market situation. Those most disadvantaged in the community would be further exploited and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to police the multiplicity of so-called agreements which would ensue. Thankfully, that situation is unlikely to occur. Insofar as the instance reported is concerned officers of my Department have ascertained that although the company involved is based in Queensland its employees work in New South Wales. In these circumstances and having regard to the nature of the work performed it is likely an award of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales applies to the employment in question. I am advised inquiries are being made by the New South Wales Department of Industrial Relations to ascertain whether the terms of the award have been complied with. Senator Grimes —On 5 June 1986 (Hansard pages 3455-57), Senator Mason asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Health a supplementary question to a question without notice regarding the glamorisation of the use of cocaine by Australian media, both film and television. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: Sub-regulation 4a (1a) (a) (v) of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, prohibits the importation of publications, including videotapes, which ``promote or incite the misuse of a drug specified in the Fourth Schedule''. Sub-regulation 4a (1a) (b) (i) further prohibits the importation of any goods that `depict, express or are otherwise concerned with matters of . . . . drug misuse or addiction . . . . in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person to the extent that they should not be imported'. Similar provisions exist in the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983, which was designed to be model legislation for adoption by the States and governs the sale and hire of films and videotapes offered for sale and hire. Sub-section 25 (3) states that ``The Censorhip Board shall refuse to approve the classification of a film when the Board is satisfied that the film depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of . . . .drug misuse or addiction . . . in such a manner that it offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adult persons to the extent that it should not be classified''. The Film Censorship Board, in classifying the multiplicity of films and videotapes presented to it, has drawn up a set of guidelines for the classification of videotapes and discs for sale or hire. These include a `Refused Classification' which covers instruction ``manuals'' for the abuse of hard drugs. The guidelines were endorsed by State and Federal Ministers with responsibility for censorship at a meeting in April 1984 and, together with the legislation set out above, provide clear evidence of the Government's opposition to any glamorisation of drug use. Senator Grimes —On 10 June 1986 (Hansard, page 3630), Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs the following question without notice: In 1984-85 the Labor Government set a target of 4,000 business migrants but achieved a result of only 1,417 such migrants. In 1985-86 the target was raised to 4,500. It is projected that only 1,800 such people will migrate. Why is this so? The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Business migration program figures each year are given as estimates. In the past two financial years, the program has been set high as an expression of the Government's positive attitude to business migration. Program numbers have not been met in 1984/85 and 1985/86, although the increase over the period is expected to be about 27 per cent. The reasons are: first, the numbers of potential business migrants world-wide are small; and second, there is strong competition from a number of countries operating similar schemes to attract business migrants. The new business migration policy introduced on 1 July 1985 has received a positive response world-wide. Interest is increasing but, because of delays in business people settling their affairs and transferring their assets to Australia, the actual increase in arrivals will not show significantly until 1986/87. The program estimate for 1986/87 is 2,500 visas for business migrants and their dependants, about 40 per cent higher than the number expected for 1985/86. This has been set as a realistic program. We will be more than happy to exceed this program if applications are greater than estimated. (Question No. 1083) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) What steps has the Government taken to ensure the safety of Australians both here and abroad, in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown. (2) What steps are being taken to monitor, abroad or on return to Australia, the exposure to radiation of Australian travellers in Europe. (3) What advice has been given to Australian travellers in relation to precautions and to the danger of particular areas as a result of the Chernobyl meltdown. (4) Are Australian travellers able to obtain any of this useful information from Australian officials in other countries. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In response to the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station, the Department of Foreign Affairs speedily convened a Task Force comprising experts from a number of related disciplines to advise on the situation. In addition the Australian Atomic Energy Commission established its own task force to advise the Government on the nature and implications of the accident. The Task Force set up by the Department of Foreign Affairs met on four occasions and, following each meeting, issued advice to all Australian Resident Mission overseas, Commonwealth and State Health Departments, Qantas and other interested bodies in Australia. Staff at Australian Missions have been kept fully advised of precautions to be followed with regard to the consumption of food products. This information has been available at Australian missions for Australians travelling overseas who wish to seek advice. Australian missions have also been advised, where necessary, to source fresh food supplies from countries which have imposed contaminant standards and a sustained monitoring programme on produce. Moreover, missions have been advised to ensure that tinned or preserved food was produced before 26 April 1986 or to obtain it from the listed countries. The Department of Health has provided a listing of those countries whose standards in this regard are known to and recognised by them. Australian citizen known to be resident in Kiev at the time of the accident were advised to leave the area. Also, Ambassadors were authorised to approve temporary evacuation where requested from missions in the regions of concern. In respect of children and wives of staff who left following the accident, all have now returned. As information has come to hand travellers have been informed via Department of Foreign Affairs travel advisory notices to media channels, Foreign Affairs Offices throughout Australia and Australian Missions overseas of the necessary precautions to follow and the countries or areas best avoided. (2) The Department of Health has provided the following additional information- The levels of radioactive contamination reported in the various European countries are such that there appears to be only a very small health risk. Levels of contamination in all European countries have returned almost to pre-existing background levels and it is therefore considered that travel to Europe presents very little radiation risk with the exception of the immediate area surrounding Chernobyl. The Department of Health has requested the Australian Customs Service to identify for inspection all food imports from affected areas to assist in the evaluation of possible elevated radioactivity. The major isotope of immediate concern following the reactor failure was Iodine-131. However, this isotope was no longer a source of concern by early to mid-June (approximately thirty-five to forty days after the accident). It is most unlikely that Australian travellers returning from the affected areas of Eastern Europe are at risk. (3) and (4) General advice was provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs to Australian travellers in the form of three travel advisory notices distributed through media channels and to Foreign Affairs Offices throughout Australia; these notices were cabled to Australian Missions overseas and are available to Australians enquiring at any mission. The last advisory repeated hereunder dated 28 July 1986 remains current. TRAVEL ADVISORY USSR NUCLEAR REACTOR FAILURE There are indications that areas within the USSR for 100 kms or more to the north and north-west of the Chernobyl site remain affected by higher than normal radiation levels. Travellers may wish to take note of this. Travellers should also note that while radioactivity levels in most of Eastern Europe have effectively returned to levels before the Chernobyl incident, a residual risk of exposure may continue to be present through eating and drinking some foods and beverages. However, short term exposures of several days to these products will not result in significant increases in the radiation burden in the body and will not present significant health risks. (Question No. 1090) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 27 may 1986: (1) Is an advisory body to be established, in light of the final report by the Working Party of the Australian Capital Territory Education Consultative Group on Post Compulsory Education Facilities in Tuggeranong which states: ``In view of the special character of the institution proposed, it is important that an advisory body should be established at an early date to provide a continuing point of reference for consultations and planning of the College''. (2) When will it be established. (3) Who will comprise the body and how will they be selected. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) A decision has not yet been taken on whether an advisory body should be established at this stage to advise on the development of the proposed Tuggeranong Community College. Planning is proceeding for the secondary college component of the College. This is expected to open in 1990 and nearer the time of this opening, there will be a decision on whether an advisory body of the type suggested should be established. (2) and (3) These questions are not relevant as no decision has been taken on whether to establish the proposed advisory body. (Question No. 1189) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 10 June 1986: (1) With whom were consultations held concerning the content of the proposed Children's Services Ordinance 1986, prior to the ordinance being drafted. (2) Were Australian Capital Territory parents consulted or their views sought; if so, who was contacted. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) A formal reference was made to the Australian Law Reform Commission by the Attorney-General in February 1979 requesting the Commission to inquire into and report on child welfare law in the ACT. The Commission's final Report (No. 18 Child Welfare 1981) included a draft ordinance which was the basis for the Children's Services Ordinance 1986. The Commission was assisted by a group of consultants drawn from the universities, police, welfare and health agencies (see Attachment A). During its inquiry the Commission undertook extensive consultation with a wide range of interested parties including State Departments, magistrates, police, welfare officers, persons involved in health, education and voluntary work, and parents and children. Public hearings were held in May 1979 and May 1980 to allow interested persons to make comments and submissions. A series of seminars was also held with agencies working in the child welfare field in the ACT. Those providing oral and written submissions to the Commission during its inquiry are shown in Attachment B. It should be noted that submissions were received from both non-profit and commercial day care interests. The Law Reform Commission's draft ordinance, together with a list of possible amendments and a Departmental report on ACT facilities and services for children, were forwarded to the House of Assembly for comment in May 1983. The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Housing and Welfare. The Assembly sought comments and submissions through advertisements in the Canberra Times. Eight submissions were received. The Standing Committee consulted with the Law Reform Commission and the Department concerning the draft ordinance. A public meeting was held at the House of Assembly in July 1983. The Assembly presented its Report in October 1983. On 26 February 1986 the Minister referred the draft Children's Services Ordinance to the House of Assembly for consideration and report. The Health, Housing and Welfare Committee sought the views of various Government Departments and other relevant organisations such as ACTCOSS, the Children's Court, and the Law Reform Commission. Comments on the Ordinance were invited from interested individuals and groups through advertisements in the Canberra Times in March 1986. Submissions were received from the following: Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn: Catholic Welfare Advisory Committee ACT Children's Services Group Office of the Chief Magistrate Australian Federal Police Capital Territory Health Commission: Child Abuse Committee Child Abuse Interagency Committee Christian Science Committee on Publication End Transportation Committee Law Society of the ACT Marymead Children's Centre National Council of Women of ACT Inc. R. J. Cahill and C. J. Stanforth Royal Australian Navy: Navy Social Worker The Committee met with and received submissions from community organisations, the Chief Magistrate, officers of the Department of Territories and the ACT Health Authority. A public conference to discuss the draft ordinance was held by Richmond Fellowship on 28 April 1986. Representatives of various government and non-government agencies attended. The Department of Territories also consulted about parts of the proposed ordinance with a range of relevant authorities including the Attorney-General's Department, the Australian Federal Police, the Department of Education and the ACT Health Authority. (2) See (1) above. Attachment ``A'' CONSULTANTS TO THE COMMISSION* Chief Superintendent A. H. Bird, A.A.I.M., Australian Federal Police Mr R. J. Cahill, S.M., B.A., LL.B. (Melv.), Court of Petty Sessions, A.C.T. Dr T. Carney, LL.b., Dip. Crim. (Melb.), Ph.D. (Monash) Monash University Mr R. Chisholm, D.A., LL.B., (Syd.). B.C.L. (Oxon.) University of New South Wales Ms E. Cox, B.A., (N.S.W.), Council of Social Service Mr J. Q. Ewens, C.M.G., C.B.E., LL.B. (Adel.), formerly First Parliamentary Counsel Ms H. Gamble, LL.M., (A.N.U.) Australian National University Mr J. M. Hemer, A.U.A., Dip. Soc. Stud., Department of Social Security, Canberra Dr M. Maloney, M.B., B.S., M.R.C., Phych. (U.K.) Capital Territory Health Commission Ms H. Nicholls, Dep. Tech. Soc. Wk. (S.A.I.T.) Department of Community Welfare, South Australia Mr B. W. Prior, B.A., Dip. Ed. (Monash), M. Soc. Sc., Dip. Ind. Rel. (Inst. of Soc. Studies) The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Mr J. Wall Dip. Soc. Stud. (Melb.) Department of Capital Territory, Canberra * The recommendations in the report and statements of opinion and conclusion are necessarily those of the Members of the Law Reform Commission alone. They may not be shared by the consultants nor by the Courts, Institutions or Departments with which the consultants are associated. Attachment `B' SCHEDULE OF ORGANISATIONS AND PERSONS WHO MADE SUBMISSIONS Oral Submissions Canberra Hearing, 10 May 1979 Australian Association of the Mentally Retarded (K. McGuire) Catholic Family Welfare Bureau (Father T. Wright) P. M. Coward B. V. Easteal T. J. Higgins P. D. Hughes, Dr D. K. Lee P. Mark Marymead Children's Centre (Sister M. Morrissey) J. New N. Radican M. Worsley Canberra Hearing, 5 May 1980 A.C.T. Teachers' Federation W. R. Atkinson, Dr Australian Association of the Mentally Retarded (K. McGuire) Australian Social Welfare Union, A.C.T. Branch (R. A. Nairn) C. Bernie R. Buckman M. Byron Canberra Women's Refuge (L. M. Inde) Dr Barnardo's (A.C.T.) (O. Iversen) I. Foster P. Gajardo H. Gunn Marymead Children's Centre (Sister M. Morrissey) Parent Support Service (J. Gifford and J. White) Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education (J. Riak) Tuggeranong Family Action Inc., A.C.T. (W. Mauldon) E. R. Ward J. C. Williamson R. Wilson Woden Community Service (D. Procter and B. Gallaher) Womens Action Alliance (B. Cains, M.H.A.) Written Submissions A.C.T. Consultative Committee on Social Welfare A.C.T. Teachers' Federation Association for Early Childhood Development (A.C.T.) Attorney-General's Department (Tas.) Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded Australian Capital Territory Police Australian Dental Association, Inc. Australian Dental Association, N.S.W. Branch Australian Institute of Welfare Officers Australian Social Welfare Union (A.C.T. Branch) R. J. Bartley, S.M. R. D. Blackmore, S.M. M. F. Butler Capital Territory Health Commission Catholic Welfare Advisory Committee of the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn S. Charlesworth Child Care Students, Canberra College of T.A.F.E. Child Care Workers' Association of the A.C.T. Childhood Services Council C. Clifford Council of Social Service of the A.C.T. D. Cruickshank, Professor Department for Community Welfare (S.A.) Department of the Capital Territory Department of Community Welfare (W.A.) Donald Duck Day Nursery and Kindergarten, Bambi Pre-School and Day Nursery, Christopher Robin Kindergarten and Day Nursery Dr Barnardo's in Australia P. Eisen, Associate Professor J. Ellard Family Life Education Council (Canty) Inc. (N.Z.) L. Foreman L. George R. Hatch J. D. Haynes Health Commission of New South Wales Health Commission of Victoria A. Hiller, University of Queensland M. B. Hoare, Hon. Mr Justice B. A. Holborow A. J. Johnson, S.M. Law Council of Australia J. Livi I. R. Matterson, S.M. F. McGinity V. McKelvey G. Morris K. A. Murray, Hon. Justice National Women's Advisory Council P. Opas Parent Support Service (A.C.T.) Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education W. G. A. Prendergast Privacy Committee (N.S.W.) E. L. Ross, S.M. Royal Australian Nursing Federation Royal Children's Hospital (Vic.) H. Schuttler P. J. Sharkey Social Welfare Action Group Sociology Students, University of New South Wales P. Tapp G. Vaughan Victorian Teachers Union R. P. White, S.M. M. Williams Women Lawyers' Association of New South Wales Women's Electoral Lobby (A.C.T.) F. W. Wright-Short (Question No. 1236) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 July 1986: (1) What consideration has been given to equip Australian Airports with landing facilities to permit the landing of aircraft at times when vision is obscured by fog or cloud. (2) What system is contemplated. (3) When is a start expected. (4) Which ports are, or would be, under consideration. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (4) The Department of Aviation currently operates and maintains 467 radio navigation aids throughout Australia, to assist aircraft to navigate and land when vision is obscured by fog or cloud. Additions and variations to the system are determined by changes in aviation industry requirements, volume of traffic and mix of aircraft types.