Tuesday, 16 September 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —I have received, through His Excellency the Governor-General, from the Deputy-Governor of the State of Victoria a certificate of the appointment of Janet Frances Powell as a senator to fill the vacancy in the representation of that State caused by the resignation of Senator Donald Leslie Chipp. The certificate was laid on the table and read by the Clerk. Senator Janet Frances Powell made and subscribed the oath of allegiance. The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to standing order 28a, I lay on the table a warrant withdrawing, at her request, Senator Haines from the panel of Temporary Chairmen of Committees and appointing Senator Mason to the panel in her place. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:- The high interest rates on home loans of 13.5% and above have and are placing the recipients in a financially disastrous position, as thousands have lost their homes and thousands more will do so if these appalling conditions continue for the young and established home purchasers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge all politicians that no Government or Opposition in a power position should continue to tolerate this cruel, vicious procedure that shatters the very structure of family life, from the farmers to the city dwellers. We need a five year period to reduce this absurdity by tackling it at its source. Firstly, interest repayments on home loans to be reduced by 2% annually for the next five years or until it is down to 8% or less. This would, or should diminish union demands, and cause no hazard for investors, who could reinvest in Government projects, or other worthwhile ventures and also ease the burden on Social Securities. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 189 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 Margaret Guilfoyle (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any suggestion that family allowances be paid at a flat rate and instead should ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing payments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walsh (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that give the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `Joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia army barracks. by Senators Cooney (from 180 citizens) and Zakharov (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the 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 Senators Chaney (from 34 citizens) and Robertson (from 424 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, contrary to the well-being and wishes of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects this Bill and all cognate Bills. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of West 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 Senator Chaney (from 14 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 10 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 Senator Durack (from 42 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 Robertson (from 72 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 Senator Durack (from 870 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 Knowles (from 13 citizens) and Robertson (from 106 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned residents of Australia totally reject any move to cut funding to Australia-wide English as a Second Language programs in schools. We request that the Australian government restore funding to the 1985 level in the 1986/87 budget. by Senators Puplick (from 180 citizens) and Ryan (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that ``States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women''. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26.1.85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operation of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lewis (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that woodchipping and clearfelling will destroy the Otway Forests, water catchments and jobs in tourism. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will protect theOtway Forests for the future and refuse any licence to export woodships from the Otways. by Senator Button (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That numerous provisions exist in industrial legislation and awards which purport to provide special protection to women workers but which have been shown to be detrimental to their achievement of equality in employment. Noting the relevant provision in Article 11 of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women to which Australia is a party your petitioners request that urgent action be taken to ensure that these legal barriers to equality be removed. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 1,270 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We 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. We 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 remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985, which will: protect individuals against violation of their rights by the impact of laws or by the actions of governmental institutions; be effective in implementing Australia's international obligations to properly secure fundamental rights and freedoms and provide an educative charter. Your petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should support the passage of this Bill at an early date. 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 of Australia: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with the mismanagement of the Victorian Otway forests, and we pray that: The Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant expressions of public concern, e.g. petitions, by the formation of a committee to represent public requests. by Senator Vallentine (from 69 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 your petitioners are gravely concerned that in the International Year of Peace, young Australians face an uncertain future due to: 1. a continuing arms race between the super-powers which threatens to extend into outer space 2. military expenditure continuing at ridiculously high levels 3. continuing testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons Your petitioners therefore humbly call upon the Federal Parliament to do everything possible to make our future more certain, by: 1. encouraging peaceful dialogue through diplomatic channels as the means of solving issues 2. persuading all developed countries to spend less on armaments, and more on basic needs like food, health, shelter and education for all people of the world 3. promoting the extension of agreements to reduce testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Tate (from 2,812 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens shows that the citizens of the Northern Territory- recognize- (i) that nuclear peace for the world will come through adequate, supervised disarmament of nuclear weapons; (ii) that arms limitation arrangements between the United States and the Soviet Union specifically provide for verification, and the general purpose of the facilities at Pine Gap contribute to this objective; (iii) among the functions performed are the provision of early warning by receiving from space satellites information about missile launches and the provision of information about the occurrences of nuclear explosions which assist in nuclear test ban monitoring, supports nuclear non-proliferation measures and contributes to global stability- and urge the Australian Government to give an unequivocal commitment to renew the lease on the joint defence facility for a further term of ten years when the present lease expires on 19 October, 1987. by Senator Kilgariff (from 34 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That taxpayers with dependent children have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of recognition provided in the taxation system for the costs of maintaining a family, in particular- the failure to index family allowances which has resulted in an erosion of more than 50 per cent in their real value since May 1976; the abolition of family allowances for dependants who have turned 18, even those still at school; the abolition of concessional tax rebates for education and other expenses. That this erosion in horizontal tax equity has placed an intolerable financial burden on many larger families, particularly those on middle incomes who fail to qualify for means-tested benefits such as TEAS but whose living standards are now well below average due to heavy expenses on necessities such as education, housing, food and clothing. Your petitioners humbly pray that: family allowances be restored to the 1976 value (in real terms), and indexed according to the CPI; the dependent spouse rebate be retained; the Federal Government take urgent measures to restore equitable provisions in the taxation system through the introduction of family income splitting. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from nine 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- There should be no introduction of payment for pensioners' pharmaceuticals. The proposed deletion of 46 products from the Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme will cause great hardships to pensioners. There should be no substituting of cheaper drugs for those prescribed by the doctor. There should be full testing of all pharmaceuticals by the Australian authorities before they are released on the market. And that Australia should develop its own manufacturing industry in pharmaceuticals and stop relying on all overseas multinational drug companies. by Senator Peter Baume (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate of Australia assembled. The petition of the undersigned in the State of Queensland showeth that Post Offices and Agencies should be located for the convenience of the public and should not be closed merely to help Australia Post make a greater profit. Your petitioners thereby humbly pray that the Australian Senate will resist all moves to close local postal facilities. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 27 citizens). Petitions received. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on 24 September 1986, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment: The treatment of food by irradiation in Australia and, in particular: (a) the health and nutritional implications of food irradiation; (b) the associated storage, transport and disposal of nuclear materials; (c) the environmental impact of food irradiation plants; (d) the economics of food irradiation; (e) the adequacy of current and proposed Federal, State and local laws covering food irradiation and associated activities; (f) the import and export of irradiated food; (g) the need for training of staff involved; and (h) food labelling, and that in its report the Committee makes such recommendations as it considers appropriate for change in public policy and law. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence: The adequacy of current contingency planning by Federal and State authorities to deal with the accidental release of ionizing radiation from visiting nuclear powered or armed vessels in Australian waters and ports. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —On behalf of Senator Lewis, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the Senate, noting that 1987 will mark the 600th anniversary of the establishment of christianity in Lithuania, calls upon the Federal Government to urge the Government of the Soviet Union to- (a) allow the Bishop of Vilnius to return from exile; (b) return those churches which were confiscated and converted into galleries and museums; (c) release Lithuanian prisoners of conscience who are in concentration camps; and (d) grant full religious freedom in Lithuania, and requests that the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Gareth Evans) report to the Senate any Soviet response. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901 to give effect to the policy whereby Australia will refuse to allow the supply of Australian uranium to France until France ceases testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific region. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, left for South America and Europe on official duty on 10 September and will return on 4 October. In his absence, the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, will be the Acting Minister for Trade. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Minister stand by his reported comments on spending cuts which were in the Age newspaper of 8 September, some of which I will quote? The Minister is reported to have said: Whether you glorify it with the expression mini-Budget or not, there is room, I believe, for further cuts in certain areas of Government expenditure. A little later it is reported that Senator Button said that the Government could have been tougher on spending in the Budget. Perhaps the Minister will also confirm that in the AM program of the same morning he said: We could have further cuts in government expenditure which would be in particular areas which were not touched in the Budget round of expenditure cuts. Does the Minister stand by those comments which were reported or broadcast on 8 September? I further ask: Will the Minister try to convince the Government that a mini-Budget should be introduced as soon as possible as, to quote what he said on that same AM program, it is better to do these things sooner than later? Senator BUTTON —It is, of course, very important to determine what fiscal year one is talking about. Twice since we have been in government we have had so-called May statements in relation to expenditure. Under the previous Government there were statements in relation to expenditure at various times. For example, I recall the activities of the now famous so-called razor gang which went on for many months. Those things have to be determined by governments at particular times. In looking at fiscal year 1987-88, it may well be that the Government has to bring forward some expenditure reviews into the second half of this financial year. The expression `mini-Budget' was used by Senator Chaney and by the journalist concerned in relation to the comment I made. Perhaps it was open to misinterpretation in that some people attach particular significance to the expression `mini-Budget'. The point I was trying to make was that it was not my expression but hers, and it would be called that, whether one liked it or not, by some journalists. As the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and others have said, and as I have said, there is the possibility, as there has been in previous years, of an expenditure statement in the first half of calendar year 1987 which would relate to the full financial year starting on 1 July 1987. To that extent I stand by the statements I have made. Senator Chaney also specifically directed my attention to the question of whether further expenditure cuts might have been possible in the current Budget. If one goes back even two or three weeks, the community and indeed the Opposition were somewhat surprised by the extent of the constraint exhibited by the Government in the Budget, particularly in respect of outlays. From that point of view it was and is regarded as a very tight Budget. That does not mean that there cannot be an ongoing review of Commonwealth expenditures. There may be areas of Commonwealth expenditure which can be further examined, but that is for future Budgets or future expenditure reviews, if the Government decides that is desirable. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister's attempt to push his words back into the next financial year, but I would remind him that in the AM interview to which I referred he specifically said that he had made his comment in light of the question about what the Government had to do in the next six months or so. In response to a later question about whether he was perhaps pushing for these to culminate in some sort of mini-Budget within the next six months, he said, and I quote in part from his answer, `I think it might be a desirable course'. I ask the Minister again the question he did not answer: Will he seek from the Government a mini-Budget because it is better to do these things sooner than later and he has indicated that that is his personal view? Senator BUTTON —I have nothing to add to what I said in my original answer. I suspect that there is always in respect of governments room for expenditure review and further expenditure constraints in various sectors. That is something the Government could examine probably within the next six months and make a decision about. The next six months, of course, takes us well into calendar year 1987. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to last Thursday's national unemployment figures, and ask whether the Minister can now provide the Senate with information on recent unemployment trends in the various States. Senator WALSH —In August 1986-the most recent month for which figures are available-Queensland's unemployment rate soared to 9.4 per cent. That is the fifth consecutive month that Queensland has recorded the highest unemployment rate of any State. So since April Queensland has had the worst unemployment record of any State. Moreover, in only three of the 35 months since the last election in Queensland has Queensland had an unemployment rate below the national average. So for 11/12ths of the time since the last Government was elected in Queensland, the unemployment rate has been above the national average. When the Queensland Premier made his policy speech in 1983, less than 15 per cent of Australia's jobless were living in Queensland, and that figure has now risen to almost 19 per cent. That is what the Bjelke-Petersen Government has done to the Queensland work force in the past three years-it has concentrated an extra 5 per cent of the nation's total unemployed in that State. Indeed, we have now reached the point where there are more people in Queensland receiving unemployment benefit than there are in the State of Victoria, notwithstanding the fact that Victoria's population is 65 per cent greater than that of Queensland. The response of the Queensland Premier to this-and it is pretty hard to get a new idea into his head-is to trot out the hoary old chestnut that the high unemployment rate and the high rate of unemployment benefit recipients in Queensland are due to what he calls `southern dole bludgers' moving up to Queensland to bask in the sun. Senator Aulich —Is there a verb in that sentence? Senator WALSH —I do not have the full sentence here, Senator Aulich; just a quotation from part of a sentence or a substitute for a sentence, which would be a more accurate description of the Premier's normal speech mode. The latest official information is that for people in the prime working age group-that is, the 20- to 34-year-old age group-some 5,200 persons have migrated from Queensland to other States where employment prospects are brighter. The population increase in Queensland is concentrated in the non-working age group. In other words, workers in Queensland have voted with their feet; they have moved out of Queensland and into one of the Labor Government States because they know that they have a significantly better opportunity of getting employment there than they have if they remain in Queensland. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer him to an interview which he gave yesterday morning on the program AM about mining in Kakadu and proposals that he confirmed he had put forward to clear the way for mining-other than uranium mining-in Kakadu, subject to environmental constraints, as he put it. I particularly quote his words: I would like, so far as the existing park is concerned, to see some assessment of the resources there to proceed. He went on to talk about the fact that the economic health of the nation required that in some cases mining should proceed. In the light of the statement that the Minister issued this morning, with his colleague Mr Cohen, I ask him whether that statement means that the vast areas of stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park are now completely locked away from any assessment of their resources, that only very limited exploration will be allowed in the remaining stage 3 of the park and that mining is to be allowed in only one area-at Coronation Hill. Does this statement mean that the Government has rejected the proposals of the Minister and presumably also those supported by the Prime Minister? Can the Minister say whether the Government has made any assessment of the loss of potential earnings from this decision and the impact that this decision will have on, to use his own words, the `economic health of the nation'? Senator GARETH EVANS —The decision made by the Government and announced today is that no mining or exploration for any mineral will be allowed to take place in the present Kakadu National Park-that is to say, stages 1 and 2 that have been declared. That means that as a result there will not be any resource assessment flowing from normal exploration activity. The decision has been made to ensure that no such activity-exploration or mining-takes place. As Minister for Resources and Energy, I have regarded my responsibility as being to ensure that all relevant points of view are put to and considered by the Government when issues of this kind arise. As far as I am concerned, that objective has been completely achieved by the very careful consideration that has been given to this matter by the Government over the last two days. The particular assessment that probably most crucially governed the final decision to treat stages 1 and 2 in that way but to leave the door open for further resource assessment in the proposed new stage 3 extension area was the assessment-it is part of the Press statement-that has been made by the Bureau of Mineral Resources on the basis of all known existing information, which is reasonably substantial so far as stage 2 is concerned and not quite as substantial so far as stage 1 is concerned, but still substantial enough to enable a general evaluation to be made. That assessment is that there is a very high level of prospectivity in the existing national park for uranium, but only a moderate level of potential prospectivity for gold, platinum, base metals and other minerals. The converse is true of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral lease areas to the south, where there is only low to moderate prospectivity, relatively speaking, for uranium, but a very high degree of mineral potential for gold and platinum. Given the Australian Labor Party's position on the mining of uranium and given also the obvious need in the country's current economic circumstances to actively pursue nationally significant deposits of other minerals, subject to environmental constraints, it was, I believe, a perfectly rational decision to distinguish as we did between the two areas. The enormous significance of the natural and cultural heritage of the existing national park has never been properly acknowledged by the Opposition, which has made it only too clear that it is willing to dig up everything in sight in the existing national park, as long as there is a buck in it for some of them. Unlike that particular perspective, we have adopted the view that the natural and cultural heritage significance of stages 1 and 2 outweighs any likely economic benefit that might flow from mineral development there. The same is not necessarily the case for stage 3. I believe that under those circumstances a decision has been now made which is not only in accordance with the views and feelings of the great mass of the Australian people but also one that is a model of economic rationality. Senator DURACK —I have a supplementary question. Apart from the reference to the BMR report, has the Government made any assessment at all of the loss of potential export earnings and the impact on the economic health of the nation from this decision, including of course the potential for uranium mining? Senator GARETH EVANS —Various figures have been floated around by various interested groups of one kind or another, but I am not in a position and the Government is not in a position to evaluate those and make any judgment about them. Any figures that one might see in relation to the potential return in terms of either employment or financial benefit from the mining of uranium in the existing national park are of course entirely academic, because quite apart from environmental considerations and the depredations that would represent on that very important part of our national and cultural heritage, it is the Government's policy, as is well known, not to allow any further uranium mining projects to occur, whether inside or outside national park boundaries or whether inside or outside the Northern Territory or anywhere else. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. In relation to the Government pursuing its policy of cost recovery in the airline industry, the Government has been accused of ignoring the impact of the new arrangements on small commuter operators. Will the Minister comment on the impact to date and the likely ramifications for the commuter airlines and the general aviation industry, particularly in Queensland? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate would be aware that over a number of years both the previous Government and, indeed, this Government have pursued a policy of cost recovery in respect of the airline industry, and the Government did make some decisions recently that have been interpreted in certain quarters as creating difficulties for the commuter operators. The Government is aware of the difficulties which commuter operators are facing during the transition period of the new charging arrangements. It is in recognition of these difficulties that the Government has provided a subsidy of $2m which will halve the charges of commuter operators during the current Budget year 1986-87. While operators have faced large percentage increases in charges, this began from a low base and the impact on air fares has been small. Nevertheless, the Government has recognised that its decision does require a transitional stage in its application. Those increases were approved by the Independent Air Fares Committee. As a result of the new charges it can be substantiated that 1.5 per cent will be available for Sunstate Airlines, which I think has some particular application for the honourable senator, and one per cent for Skywest Aviation Ltd. There will be an increase in flag fall for Hazelton Air Services Pty Ltd of $1.20 and for Kendell Airlines of $1.40. For Aeropelican Air Services Pty Ltd, 2.4 per cent is available. The figure for Airlines of Tasmania is 3 per cent. The increase for these two operators also takes into account the effect of the national wage decision. I point out also that there has been a subsidy of $1.80 for Rottnest Airlines. General aviation operators will remain on a fixed annual charge arrangement for this financial year. Consultations are therefore being pursued with the industry to develop the most appropriate charging arrangements for general aviation. Annual air navigation charges were increased by 17 per cent on 1 July 1986. The Government's decision to credit the departure tax revenue to the aviation industry and recent increases in aviation fuel excise will lift the cost recovery rate to around 100 per cent in the year 1986-87. So the Government is aware of the difficulties and is taking what practical steps it can, having regard to the economic conditions facing this country, to ease the burdens on the commuter operators. Senator HAINES —Like Senator Durack, I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to today's statement issued jointly by himself and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment which announced, amongst other matters, the extension of Kakadu National Park to include the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases, but excluded from the new national park area Coronation Hill, where BHP Noranda Pty Ltd and EZ Industries are currently exploring for gold and platinum. When was the decision to exclude Coronation Hill made, and by whom? What evidence, if any, does the Government have of platinum being present in commercial quantities at Coronation Hill? If there is no evidence of platinum being present in commercial quantities, why was Coronation Hill excluded? What evidence was considered of the effect of mining at Coronation Hill on the Alligator Rivers area, in view of the fact that Coronation Hill is located within the Alligator Rivers catchment area? Does the decision to exclude mining from stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu represent a backdown by the Prime Minister, or is the decision based on the expedient ground that, as noted in the joint statement, no commercially viable mineral deposits are contained within stages 1 and 2? Finally, do the recent decisions regarding the sale of uranium to France and the assault on the environmentally fragile areas of Kakadu National Park signal a departure from the Hawke Government's previous environmental commitment as demonstrated by its actions over the Franklin issue? Senator GARETH EVANS —The decision relating to Coronation Hill was made by the Cabinet at about 8.35 this morning and endorsed by the Caucus at about 9.53. In both instances it was a decision in principle that was being endorsed because the Coronation Hill joint venture has not been fully proved up and the final formal decision by the joint venture partners to go ahead has not been made. Nonetheless, on all the evidence which has been made available progressively to my Department and to the Bureau of Mineral Resources, it is apparent that there is a very major gold deposit there which is clearly not merely of commercial viability but also of a nationally significant scale. Similarly, it is evident that there is a very substantial platinum resource there. Just how substantial it is is a matter for current assessment by the joint venture partners. It would be inappropriate for me to say anything more about that given the commercial character of these matters. All that can be said is that clearly the deposit is already discernible as a deposit of national economic significance and as such is appropriate to be earmarked on this occasion for exclusion from the park. Obviously, as stated in the announcement this morning relating to Coronation Hill, the project will go ahead only if it can pass muster against the provisions of the environmental impact legislation, which includes reference also to Aboriginal heritage considerations and matters of that kind. Senator Crichton-Browne —Would that apply to stage 2 or stage 1? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am talking about Coronation Hill. Senator Crichton-Browne —I know, but-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Haines —Just answer my question. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have lost the thread. The honourable senator has succeeded to that extent. The point I want to make about the environmental constraint is that what is crucial about the Gimbat-Goodparla pastoral lease area is the protection of the ecology of the South Alligator river system. That is the attraction of the Gimbat-Goodparla pastoral leases for the national park. It is not because of anything that is particularly dramatic or exciting about the rest of the pastoral lease areas as such. All sorts of comparisons could be made between that area and the existing stage 1 and stage 2, not least the existence of a great deal of prior mining activity having taken place up and down the South Alligator River valley. I think that sufficiently answers the first question. The second question was whether the decision on stages 1 and 2 amounts to a backdown by anybody. The answer is no, for the reasons that I explained earlier in answer to Senator Durack. I am sorry that Senator Haines is so churlish as not to acknowledge the magnitude of the decision made on stages 1 and 2. It is a decision which is path-breaking in that it completely excludes the possibility of mining and exploration. I believe that is something that the Australian Democrats have regarded as devoutly to be wished. That having now been accomplished, they are unable to acknowledge with any grace the nature of the decision made. Finally, I was asked whether this amounts to any kind of departure from the environmental commitments that this Government has made and honoured in the past. Clearly, that is not the case. The Government remains infinitely more sensitive to these issues than are its opponents opposite. Senator Haines —That's not saying much. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that that may not be saying much given the rape and pillage that could be expected to occur under a Howard Administration, but nonetheless it is a substantial comment to make about our commitment, the sincerity of it and the way in which over the life of this Government we have made very many decisions which have earned us quite properly the plaudits of the environmental movement. The other aspect of this decision that ought to be acknowledged but has not been in the honourable senator's question or anywhere else is that this morning we also decided to proceed immediately to the nomination of stage 2 of the Kakadu National Park for the World Heritage List. That again is something for which people have been calling for quite some time. That decision has been made without equivocation or qualification. That will happen. Senator BLACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in theCourier-Mail of 12 September regarding the authorisation of a loan to Mr Michael Behan, a former National Party Senate candidate, by the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries in contradiction of advice from the finance manager of Behan's pastoral company-Elders- his Commonwealth trading bank manager and the Rural Reconstruction Board? If so, will the Minister confirm that a part of the funds provided to Mr Behan was allocated under natural disaster relief arrangements? If that was the case, what action does the Minister propose to take? Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: I am not sure to what extent this question comes within the purview of the Commonwealth Government or, indeed, the responsibilities of the Minister for Finance. Senator Walsh —Speaking to the point of order Mr President: It appears that the payment was ultimately sourced under the natural disaster relief arrangements. In the case of Queensland, in the last financial year 75 per cent of the money in question would have come from the Commonwealth. The PRESIDENT —If the Minister says that the matter comes within his ministerial purview, I will allow the question. Senator WALSH —The article was brought to my attention only this morning. I have not yet been able to check out all the facts and am therefore not able to answer fully the last part of the honourable senator's question about what action I propose to take. This would have been an extraordinary story if the events had occurred anywhere else but in Queensland. It appears that Mr Behan had a debt of about $702,000 and applied for an additional $145,000 loan-$60,000 of which was to be used to reduce his debt to the Elders pastoral company, the remainder to be added to the pre-existing debt. In a memo dated 3 March, the General Manager of the Agricultural Bank, Mr Dellit, wrote: Despite the budget that Mr Behan has drawn up (assuming a run of good seasons), I do not believe it is possible to service borrowings of this magnitude even when the property is fully stocked. I note that Mr Behan anticipates a surplus of $70,000 (less June interest) in October. However, with interest accumulating at in excess of $100,000 per annum, there is very little for debt reduction. In the final sentence of the memo Mr Dellit wrote: The applications for further advances of $60,000 to reduce debt to Elders, $45,000 for carry on and $40,000 for restocking are declined. Mr Behan, however, is no ordinary person. He is a failed National Party Senate candidate and currently an employee of the Queensland National Party, being employed as a northern district organiser. No doubt it was for that reason that Mr Dellit in a memo dated 21 March wrote: This case was discussed this morning with the Honourable the Minister for Primary Industries who directed that the sum of $145,000, as applied for from the bank, be approved. Moreover, on 24 April, Mr Dellit reportedly wrote: Early this afternoon I was called by Mr A. Hegarty, Deputy Director General to the Department of Primary Industries in regard to the Behan case. Mr Hegarty showed me a letter from Mr Behan to the Minister giving his version of a discussion at the bank on the morning of 22 April. To cut short all the details, it is clear that the Rural Reconstruction Board, the Elders pastoral company and the Agricultural Bank each recommended that no loan be granted on the grounds that there was no chance that Mr Behan could be viable and therefore repay his existing debts, let alone further debts. However, into that scene was intruded, in typical Queensland National Party fashion, the `getting public money mixed up with National Party money' philosophy for which Queensland has become notorious. The Minister for Primary Industries directed the bank to make the advance to Mr Behan. I understand that the Premier has described the $145,000 as a `lousy' amount. I remind him that another former associate of his is now in the slammer for having misappropriated an even lousier amount. I remind him also $145,000 might seem to be a `lousy' amount to Queensland National Party apparatchiks who are accustomed to sticking their fists in the public till but to other Queenslanders it is not a lousy or inconsequential amount, and it is not a lousy amount as far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned. In response to the final part of Senator Black's question, I will be initiating inquiries through the Department of Finance. If I may interpolate, a number of Commonwealth governments have had difficulty dealing with the Queensland Government and the Queensland bureaucracy because it is at all times necessary to be diligently looking over the shoulders of Queensland officials to make sure they are not misappropriating or misusing Commonwealth funds, but it is impossible to do this with absolute certainty. I will be asking the Department of Finance to determine the facts insofar as it is possible, firstly, to see whether Mr Behan was in fact the victim of a natural disaster. I suppose in a sense he is the beneficiary of an unnatural windfall gain through his membership of a Queensland branch of the National Party of Australia. We have to determine whether there was a natural disaster which would have given him some provisional entitlement to a loan. Secondly, we have to check out the facts regarding the gross breach of normal procedures, clearly instigated by the Government of Queensland, if not by the Premier himself. When I receive that report I will consider what further action is necessary for me as an individual Minister to take or refer the matter to Cabinet for decision. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy, who represents the Attorney-General, to assurances he gave the Senate on the 21st of last month that the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry would have ample opportunity and sufficient time to provide to law enforcement authorities any material of a kind which is colourable, to quote the Minister, before it is wound up by the legislation that is still before this Senate. I remind the Minister of his indignation at that time at suggestions that this process may not be achieved and that any breach of this undertaking would render him and the Government deserving of the censure of the Senate. In view of the fact that the Commission now says that further investigation and/or cross-examination of witnesses would be necessary to make much of the material that it holds suitable for reference, what action does the Minister propose to honour the undertakings that he has given? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not have a detailed brief on that but I will seek a response from the Attorney-General. On a question of order, having been pulled up in raising these matters in the past and since this Bill is still before the Senate, it may be an appropriate matter to take up in the remaining debate on this Bill rather than in the context of questions. Senator Sir John Carrick —Will you give me an early answer? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will certainly endeavour to-by tomorrow, if I can. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Has the Minister seen reports last week of an alternative Federal Budget put forward by the so-called New Right? Would the Minister care to comment on the effects of such a policy on the welfare of women and families in the Australian community? Senator RYAN —Yes, I have seen that document put forward by a group that calls itself the New Right or some name to that effect. I think it is important from the point of view of the circumstances of women in Australia that Australian women be quite clear about what the proponents of this new fanatical ideology are actually up to and what effect their ideas would have on women if they were to be taken up officially-clearly, they are unofficially supported by the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard-and if by any misfortune to the Australian people they should actually be in a position to put them into effect. The New Right-as we know, it is quite close to John Howard-is very hostile to women, services provided to low income people through the public purse and welfare payments to individuals. A few of the measures that it proposes in its alternative Budget include these: An end to indexation of pensions and benefits, with any rises left to the discretion of Cabinet, which would take $450m off pensioners, the majority of whom are women; the taxing of family allowances and the abolition of allowance for the first child, which would take $600m away from families; the abolition of-- Senator Walters —How much have you taken away? Senator RYAN —I am sure that Senator Walters would be happy to join forces with the New Right. Perhaps honourable senators would like to hear what she would like to do. One measure that Senator Walters would really like is the abolition of bulk billing in the health system and the reduction of the Medicare rebate to 60 per cent of the schedule fee. Other measures include the cutting of grants to advanced education in technical and further education colleges; the abolition of the participation and equity program, which is a program aimed specifically at disadvantaged groups in education; the abolition of the first home owners scheme; a cut of funding by half, under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement; and the abolition of all job creation and training programs. It is interesting that Senator Walters and her cohorts shout and scream when the New Right's Budget cuts are proposed. It is useful, especially to those who have organised themselves outside Parliament House today, to complain about aspects of the Budget that did not fill their aspirations. They pay attention to what those on the other side of the chamber and their front runners, the New Right, really would do. Those who are concerned, as we are, about women on welfare, single parent families and people who need bulk billing in the Medicare system, should pay attention to the draconian cuts and the destruction of virtually all major welfare initiatives that would take place if the New Right managed to bamboozle the public and help John Howard, its real leader, into office. Senator KILGARIFF —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Has there been a shipment of Queensland Mines Ltd uranium to France since the Budget decision to lift the ban on sales to that country? Has the Government been reimbursed in full by the company for the money it paid in compensation during the existence of that ineffective ban? If not, how much has been paid so far? Will the total amount be repaid by the company, despite today's lower prices? If so, when does the Government expect payment to be completed? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not aware whether any shipment has been made. That is a matter for the commercial arrangements that are entered into between QML and Electricite de France, which is the French purchaser, subject, of course, to the necessary export clearance being received from the Government. I do not believe that any shipment has been made. However, I do not have that information. The honourable senator asked whether any money has been received. The basis of the arrangement between the Government and QML is that the moneys in question will be paid in full by 30 June 1987; in other words, this financial year. I do not have full details about whether there will be any progressive payments before then. The extent to which that can appropriately be put on the public record might be addressed in an Estimates committee later this week. The amount will be repaid in full-that is, the $41m that the Commonwealth has paid QML for the uranium already transferred in the past couple of years from QML to the Commonwealth and put in stockpile. There will be a saving regarding the $25m or so that was to have been paid out this financial year, but which will no longer be necessary. The past stockpile amount of about $40m or $41m will be repaid in full. Senator HARRADINE —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, is posed against the background of a somewhat incomplete historical focus on the Higgins Harvester judgment by a member of the H. R. Nicholls Society. Is it not a fact that the Harvester judgment arose not from a wage case but from an application by a manufacturer for exemption from paying excise duty equivalent to import tax; in other words, a tariff application? Is it not a fact that, inherent in his consideration of the application, Judge Higgins had to consider the entitlement of a worker to a fair and reasonable income sufficient to sustain his family in reasonable comfort? However, besides addressing that question will the Government consider the burden that an equivalent tariff increase of 30 per cent or 40 per cent because of the drop in the value of the dollar is placing on the family? Will the Government also consider the fact that, in the last 10 years, the disposable income of a family with four children on average earnings has dropped by 11 percentage points and will drop a further one percentage point by this time next year? Senator BUTTON —I am not quite sure why this question was addressed to me. A part of it is relevant to my portfolio and the other part perhaps is not. The first part of the honourable senator's question was very learned and erudite and it sounds right to me so I do not have to do more than agree with the honourable senator about the circumstances in which the Harvester judgment came about. Certainly the criterion adopted by Henry Bournes Higgins in that case was one of a fair and reasonable income for a worker with an average family. I think it is probably true in aggregate that there has been a tariff increase of some 30 per cent or 40 per cent arising from the devaluation of the Australian dollar, but I would just caution against that figure being accepted in respect of a wide range of commodities and goods because there has been very variable behaviour across industries in respect of the effect of the devaluation and the tariff equivalent concerned. I can neither confirm nor deny the figure the honourable senator gave in respect of household disposable income but I accept the figure which he put to me. I do not know what conclusion he is asking me to draw from all that, whether it is that tariffs should be lowered on certain goods or whether the Government should be concerned about the other end of the equation, which is disposable family income. I will consider that further and provide the honourable senator with a more detailed answer in due course. Senator SANDERS —I refer the Minister for Finance to the decision of the Government to permit the export of uranium to France, the decision to amend the Northern Territory land rights legislation to erode seriously Aboriginal control over mining and the decision forced on the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment by the Prime Minister to permit mining within Kakadu. I ask the Minister: Are the economic rationalists who dominate the present Government caving in to the pressure of the Australian Mining Industry Council and the arguments of the New Right by redefining our national priorities to permit export-oriented economic development irrespective of environmental or social cost? Finally, how does the Minister define the national interest? Specifically, how many millions of dollars of royalties would justify drilling for oil on the Barrier Reef or extracting minerals from Kakadu National Park? Senator WALSH —Not all of those issues that have been raised come within my responsibilities, either as Minister for Finance or as a member of the Expenditure Review Committee for that matter. I note that Senator Sanders objects to economic rationalists having any input into government policy. I can only conclude from that that he would prefer economic irrationalists to be in control of policy; in other words, people like himself and a lot of the others with whom he seems to surround himself and to whom he panders. Dealing with the financial aspects of the uranium decision, it is very rare that a specific policy has these effects: To take amounts off outlays-expenditure in this case of $66m-off the Budget deficit and off the current account deficit. Very rarely does any single decision have all those positive things going for it, and that was certainly one of the factors which the Government considered. As I said earlier, I do not think that the other matters that were raised come within my responsibility as Finance Minister or as a member of the Expenditure Review Committee. If Senator Sanders wants to take them up, I suggest he refer them to the Ministers responsible or their representatives. But I would like to make one comment on a question of fact. Senator Sanders is insulated in that cocoon of middle class trendies, where he normally finds himself, who think that there is a bottomless bucket and that governments can go on spending money everywhere and economies can go on providing money for all sorts of good works without ever having any wealth generating process either within the government or within the community as a whole. He probably would not have noticed it there, but a large number of Aboriginal leaders are, in fact, in favour of mining. Senator Sanders having addressed a supplementary question- The PRESIDENT —Order! The question is far from the original question and is not a supplementary question. Senator McINTOSH —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of reports that an East Timorese university student, Antonio Gonsalvez, was abducted by plain clothes intelligence officers in Jakarta on Wednesday, 3 September, and has not been heard of since? Is the Government aware that friends and relatives fear for his safety and fear he may be tortured? As this enforced disappearance occurred two weeks ago, will the Australian Government, as a matter of urgency, seek a formal confirmation of the arrest of Mr Gonsalvez from the Indonesian Government, formally express concern for his welfare and ask that Mr Gonsalvez be granted access to lawyers and relatives? Senator GARETH EVANS —All I can say on this matter is that the Government understands that Mr Gonsalvez was arrested in Jakarta on 3 September, although we do not know the reasons for the arrest. Our embassy in Jakarta is continuing to make inquiries about him. We will keep the honourable senator informed. Senator ALSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the Minister's recent words of consolation to the textile workers of Wangaratta that he favoured getting the effective rate of tariff protection below 75 per cent. Did the Minister say it would be simplistic only to lower tariffs in restructuring the textile, clothing and footwear industries? If so, did the Minister have in mind any real or nominal wage reductions or the elimination of any costly and inefficient work practices-if so, which practices-or will any additional measures be confined to retraining and transition arrangements? If so, what will be the net economic cost? Senator BUTTON —I must begin by conceding that I am not nearly as good as the people who dream up these questions. If the honourable senator is asking me questions about the net economic costs in a variety of hypothetical situations, I suggest he spend his time trying to work out the answers rather than asking me to do so. The question of wage reductions, as the honourable senator puts it, is not something within the purview of the Government in respect of the textile, clothing and footwear industries. The industries' workers are not highly paid. They are not only not highly paid workers by Australian standards; they are not highly paid by many international standards, in terms of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Government's wages policy is determined in the context of the prices and incomes accord and decisions and submissions are made to the national wage cases. Insofar as work practices are concerned, the honourable senator can peddle that sort of line around as hard as he can go. There is not much complaint from textile manufacturers about work practices in the textile industry. In fact, I think the industry is very much more free from complaints about work practices than are other industries. So those are two areas to which I will not be giving much attention in respect of the textile, clothing and footwear industries. In any event, the question of work practices, apart from a general indication of government concern about matters in some areas, is essentially a matter for management and the work force to work out between themselves. That is what has happened in this country. That is why work practices in some industries are bad and in other industries they are not, because bad management has allowed them to develop in a number of places. That is not true, I believe, in the textile, clothing and footwear industries. Insofar as the general level of assistance which will be accorded to the textile industry is concerned let me say this: The so-called 75 per cent option was adopted by a wide range of people long before the recent devaluation of the Australian dollar. There has to be some consideration of the value of the Australian dollar in determining the final level of assistance. That level will also be affected by factors such as the period over which a phase down of tariffs will take place. It is also affected by what assistance, or otherwise, the Government might give in respect of a whole range of issues, including export assistance, labour restructuring and retraining assistance, marketing and things of that kind. I make these points at some length because very rigorous attempts are being made in certain sections of the community, particularly sections of the community which have made a squillion out of the textile, clothing and footwear industries, to reduce these matters to simplistic issues. They are not simplistic. The disappointing thing is that the honourable senator in his question makes the most valiant attempt to reduce them to simplistic, ideological and idiotic assumptions about wages and work practices, which are not issues in these industries. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen the recent edition of the Pharmacy Review in which the President of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, Jim Matthews, reports the approval by the Guild of the changes in the Budget to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and says that the changes were `equitable and workable'? In the light of the misinformation peddled by Opposition members regarding these changes, can the Minister elaborate on the new proposals for their edification? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have seen the copy of the Pharmacy Review and it is not surprising that Mr Matthews, who is the National President of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, should agree with the changes that were made in light of the fact that they were made in consultation with and with the approval of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. In some cases members of the Opposition and, in other cases, members of the public have not understood the changes as they were written up. I think it is a pity that they have complained about those changes and in fact believe that many people will be worse off. The changes will result in a more efficient scheme and will give greater protection to chronically ill taxpayers. In fact, the changes do retain the assistance to pensioners and other disadvantaged people which existed in the previous scheme. The raising of the maximum charge from $5 to $10 does not mean, as many people apparently interpreted, that prescriptions will now cost $10. In fact, it is estimated that the average cost of a prescription will be around $7.30, as the cost of a large number of items will lie between $5 and $10. Under the safety net built into the scheme to protect the chronically ill, no individual or family, including concessional beneficiaries, will have to pay for more than 25 pharmaceutical benefits scheme prescriptions in one year. After that number is reached, the prescriptions will be free. The net result of that is that those people who have to have more than 25 prescriptions will be better off under the new scheme. The scheme has been clarified in the post-Budget period and I think that there has been a general acceptance of it by the pharmaceutical industry, pensioner organisations and others. It is time that we all settled down to ensuring that people know the facts and know their rights so that they can get the full benefit of the new scheme. We should do this rather than indulging in misinformation and therefore disadvantaging the very people whom the scheme is designed to help. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to an earlier question about unemployment figures in Queensland, and the fact that in his reply the Minister was unable to say how many unemployed came to Queensland from the southern States. Is the Minister aware that a thousand people a month come to Queensland from other States? Has any analysis been done as to whether these people were employed when they left the southern States, and also how long is the average time of unemployment after they arrive in Queensland? If the Minister is unable to supply this information now, will he arrange for it to be supplied as soon as possible? Senator WALSH —I will refer the last part of the question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, but I doubt whether he would agree that there was any valid purpose to be served, certainly from an employment perspective, in recording the number of people who are either too young or too old to be in the work force who might go to Queensland. I do not know whether the figure is 1,000 a month or not, but I would suspect that many more than 1,000 a month would go there, albeit often for short terms. But if one wants to look at the prime working age group, the 20 to 34-year-old group, we do know-this is recorded, because there is a valid purpose in collecting such information-that in the last financial year there was a net loss of 5,000 people in that prime working age group from Queensland to other States. The reason that 5,000 people decided to move was that in the last three years, when the employment situation has generally improved in Australia and has dramatically improved in many States, in Queensland it has not improved at all. Queensland, for 32 of the last 35 months, has had an above average level of unemployment, and for all of the last five months Queensland has had the highest level of unemployment of any State. People have got that message; they are voting with their feet. If they want a job, they have found out that the best prospect of getting a job is to leave Queensland and go to one of the Labor States. That is what they are doing. Senator FOREMAN —Will the Minister for Veterans' Affairs comment on statements by the Opposition spokesman on Public Service matters, Mr Connolly, that several ministries would be abolished under a Liberal-National Party Government? Assuming that Veterans' Affairs was one of the ministries it abolished, how does the Minister believe that this action would square with the Opposition's commitment to treat our war veterans with the maximum generosity responsible government can allow? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware that a number of statements have been made by conservative forces and persons affecting public sector spending during 1986. I presume that Senator Foreman is referring to a statement by the shadow Minister for Public Service matters, Mr Connolly, suggesting that there should be a drastic reduction in the number of government departments and some absorption of existing departments into what would be regarded as a major department looking after veterans' affairs, health, social security and community services under one particular heading. An organisation that calls itself the Institute of Public Policy, represented by Mr Brian Buckley, one-time staff member of a former Treasurer, the late Sir Phillip Lynch, went so far as to say that the Department of Veterans' Affairs should be abolished. I gather what he meant was that it should be absorbed. There is obviously a school of thought in the conservative areas of our land that believes that there is no longer a valid reason for maintaining the Department of Veterans' Affairs-a view that is not shared by this Government or by the veterans' community. There would be an uproar if any such suggestion were to be made with any support from the Government or the Opposition. However, there has been a call by Opposition members for savage cuts in public spending and it is clear that there is a school of thought in their party which suggests that Veterans' Affairs would be a vulnerable department in relation to saving public funding and also public servants. As far as my Department is concerned, we see it as having a future at least until the turn of the century, and the Government is committed to maintaining it. I repudiate all those views that have been expressed by Opposition members and conservative forces that there is some justification for savage cutbacks in public sector spending. Senator GARETH EVANS —When we last sat, Senator Sheil asked a question on 22 August about alleged funding from within Australia for various so-called terrorist groups overseas. I now have the following answer from the Minister for Foreign Affairs: The Government has no evidence to support reports that the Catholic Church in Australia has given funds to the Communist Party of the Philippines. Secondly, the categorisation of the FLNKS as a `terrorist group' is not accurate. The FLNKS is an independence movement with broad-based popular support whose leaders have been democratically elected and accepted as responsible spokesmen by the French Government. The question of funding between private organisations and the FLNKS is not one in which the Australian Government feels it should involve itself. I might add, Mr President, that it appears that Senator Sheil's question had no more substance than the gibberish that has been recently uttered by the Queensland National Party Premier on the subject of alleged terrorist activities being based within Australia. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS —It is regrettable that Hansard is unable to inject the right amount of sarcasm into comments or particularly interjections made and for this reason I rise on a point of personal explanation. On 22 August when Senator Walsh was answering a question, having previously tried most unsuccessfully to explain why the Government was selling uranium to France, I interjected: We will not sell uranium to France. Obviously I was quoting the Government's previous statements. Unfortunately, when I read Hansard I found that it sounded as though I was making that comment on behalf of my Party and Senator Button immediately took it up as such. Because he took that up in his, again, sarcastic way and because the sarcasm of both his comments and mine does not come across in Hansard, I just wished to rectify the situation. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —I table the Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto, pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901, for the year ended 30 June 1986, and I move: That consideration of the statement in Committee of the Whole be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts, dated 16 September 1986. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Assent reported. 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)(3.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Government strongly opposes the dumping at sea of radioactive waste and other radioactive matter. The purpose of the present Bill is to give effect to this policy, by amending the existing legislation which controls dumping in Australian waters and by Australian citizens. The principal Act to be amended is the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. The Act provides for protection of the Environment by regulating the dumping into the sea and the incineration at sea of wastes and other matter. It was supported on both sides of the Parliament and received assent in 1981. The present Government brought the Sea Dumping Act into effect in March 1984. In August 1985 Australia ratified the convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter, which is commonly referred to as the London Dumping Convention. As a contracting party to the convention, Australia subsequently co-sponsored a resolution adopted at the ninth consultative meeting, held in September last year, which provides for an indefinite suspension of the dumping of radioactive wastes at sea pending further studies and assessments. Several other international conventions are also relevant. In conformity with the Government's policy of vigorous opposition to the dumping of radioactive waste at sea, the Prime Minister signed the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone (SPNFZ) Treaty on behalf of Australia on 6 August 1985. When it comes into effect the Treaty will, amongst other things, prohibit the dumping of radioactive waste at sea within the treaty area, including the territorial sea of contracting parties. Parties to the SPNFZ Treaty will be required to prevent the dumping of radioactive matter in their territorial seas and not to assist or encourage the dumping of radioactive matter at sea anywhere within the Treaty area. Another international agreement, the convention for the protection of the natural resources and environment of the South Pacific Region, ``SPREP'', is currently at an advanced stage of drafting. This Convention would, amongst other things, regulate the dumping of wastes at sea and preclude the sea dumping of radioactive matter anywhere in a defined South Pacific region. The SPNFZ Treaty places a legal obligation on its parties to work towards agreement upon a SPREP Convention which will ban the sea dumping of radioactive materials. The present Bill will amend the principal Act to enable Australia to give effect to prospective obligations under both the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and the SPREP Convention. As it presently stands, the Sea Dumping Act prohibits the dumping of high level radioactive waste and other high level radioactive matter at sea, but, paralleling the London Dumping Convention, it allows dumping under permit of other radioactive wastes and materials. I should add that no such permits have been sought under the provisions of the Act. I turn now to the substance of the amending Bill. The purpose of the Government is to prohibit the dumping at sea of radioactive waste. As honourable senators may know, all substances are to some extent radioactive, although, for most, their activity is negligible. It is thus necessary to make a definition which will clearly distinguish the radioactive substances whose dumping is to be prohibited under the Act from all other substances. This is to be done by establishing a threshold radioactivity level of 35 becquerels per gram, which is just marginally above the natural level of activity of the common element potassium. The unit of measurement of radioactivity, the ``becquerel,'' relates to the rate of radioactive decay of a substance. One becquerel represents one spontaneous disintegration of the nucleus of an atom per second. So that honourable senators may be assured that the proposed 35 becquerels per gram threshold limit is very low. I can advise that the activity of ordinary granite may range up to 15 becquerels per gram or more, Australian beach sands, which are mined for their mineral content, may have an activity of about 30 becquerels per gram, whilst potassium chloride, a common constituent of fertilisers, has an activity of about 18 becquerels per gram. For comparison, the uranium yellow cake produced from uranium mines has an activity of about 22,000 becquerels per gram. There should be no environmental effects attributable to the trivial radioactivity of dumped materials which are below the specified threshold level of activity. This definition is, in the view of the Government, fully consistent with the draft definition adopted for the purposes of the SPREP Convention. The Act does not apply in relation to a vessel, aircraft or platform belonging to one of the Defence Forces, reflecting a similar exemption in the London Dumping Convention. However it will continue to be the practice that the Defence Forces will observe the requirements of the Act, as amended. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has initiated an exchange of letters with the Minister for Defence to this effect. Another proposed amendment to the Act clarifies that disposal of material into the seabed, or subsoil beneath the sea, by the dropping of containers designed to penetrate into the soft sediments of the sea-floor, amounts to disposal at sea. The technical possibility of such a method of disposing of radioactive wastes has been raised overseas. Consistent with the Government's view on the respective roles of Commonwealth and State authorities in offshore areas, the present Act provides a mechanism for disapplying its provisions to the extent that equivalent State legislation applies in relation to the coastal waters of a State. (``Coastal Waters'' are essentially the territorial sea within the three mile limit.) This mechanism is to remain, but it will not apply to sections of the Act which prohibit the dumping, loading for dumping or incineration at sea of radioactive materials. Having given thought to the prospective implementation of complementary Commonwealth and State legislation to control sea dumping, the Government has concluded that there will need to be some kind of memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and individual States to ensure that administration is made as simple and efficient as possible for permit applicants and the administering authorities. The Commonwealth must also be satisfied that the obligations it has under the London dumping convention, and those it will assume under the SPNFZ Treaty and the SPREP Convention, will be fully met. Accordingly the wording of the relevant section of the present Act is to be amended to provide a discretion in its disapplication in favour of equivalent State legislation. The Commonwealth's intention is to exercise that discretion in favour of suitable State legislation provided that an appropriate memorandum of understanding on administrative procedures is also entered into with the State concerned. Finally, a minor amendment to the Act will ensure that where State legislation does apply, it will not be necessary for the Commonwealth to issue a permit for the loading of waste in addition to the permit for dumping of that waste in coastal waters issued under State legislation. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I have received the following message from the House of Representatives: Message No. 388 Mr President, The House of Representatives returns to the Senate the Bill intituled ``A Bill for an Act to Repeal the `Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act 1986', and for related purposes'', and acquaints the Senate that the House of Representatives has agreed to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 made by the Senate, and has disagreed to Amendment No. 4, but, in place thereof, has made the amendment as indicated by the annexed Schedule. The House of Representatives desires the reconsideration of the Bill by the Senate in respect of the amendment disagreed to, and desires the concurrence of the Senate in the amendment made by the House of Representatives. JOAN CHILD Speaker Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That consideration of the message in Committee of the Whole be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. The PRESIDENT —Order! It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 30 August 1986, of former Senator the Hon. Dame Annabelle Jane Mary Rankin, DBE. 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 30 August 1986, of the Honourable Dame Annabelle Jane Mary Rankin, DBE, Senator for the State of Queensland from 1947 to 1971, and a Minister of the Crown from 1966 to 1971, places on record its appreciation of her long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to her sister in her bereavement. Dame Annabelle Rankin was born in Brisbane on 28 July 1908. Her career is probably most notable for having attained a series of firsts in Australian public life, and I just illustrate some of those firsts which she attained. She was elected to the Senate for the Liberal Party of Australia in the 1946 Federal election; the first woman from Queensland to enter Federal politics. She was a pioneer in the involvement of women in Australian public life. In October 1947, a year later, she was appointed Opposition Whip; the first woman in any Westminster-style parliament to hold the office of Whip. In June 1951 she was appointed Government Whip, a position she held for 15 years. She served, as most senators do, on various parliamentary committees. She was created a Dame of the British Empire in the Queen's birthday honours in 1957. She was Australia's second woman to hold Cabinet or ministerial rank after Dame Enid Lyons, but she was the first woman responsible for an executive department when she became Minister for Housing in the Holt Government on Australia Day 1966. She held that portfolio until May 1971 when she retired from Parliament. On her retirement from Parliament she was appointed High Commissioner to New Zealand, being the first Australian woman to be appointed to a diplomatic post in another country, and she held that position with distinction until September 1974. In addition to her public career in the parliamentary sense, she had a record of considerable community services before she entered parliament, as a teacher, with the Girl Guides Association, the Young Women's Christian Association and various other bodies of that kind. Her community concerns were very important to her throughout her 25 years as a parliamentarian. Dame Annabelle Rankin was a long-standing and respected member of this chamber who served her country and her Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, with distinction. Her parliamentary achievements were recognised in 1984 when the new Federal seat of Rankin in Queensland was named in her honour. On behalf of the Government I extend to her sister our sincere sympathy at the passing of a fine Australian. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition, I wish to express our support for the motion of condolence which has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and to support his expressions of sympathy to Dame Annabelle Rankin's sister. Senator the Hon. Dame Annabelle Rankin was not known well to me. I met her only as a visitor to this place, but it is clear from anything one can read of her or, indeed, hear of her from her contemporaries that she was an outstanding contributor to this place and an outstanding person. There is a small biography of her which is entitled A Woman of Distinction, and I found in a critique of that book an article headed `A thoroughly nice lady'. On what I know of her I think she will be long remembered in both those terms-as a woman of distinction and as a thoroughly nice lady. She had an outstanding career, which has been outlined by the Leader of the Government, and that career seemed to have left her kindness, her calm and her good cheer untouched. I think that alone is a matter of some distinction in this place. Born in Brisbane, she was the child of a politician, and that makes her one of the many people who have chosen to follow in the footsteps of a parent. One of the present female senators in this place, Senator Shirley Walters, is one who has followed her father into politics, and Dame Annabelle Rankin was another. Her work during the war was distinguished. After her experience with the Girl Guides Association prior to the war she did welfare work with the armed forces and travelled extensively doing that work. She was in the end responsible for the welfare of all women's services in Queensland. She was, as Senator Button has told us, elected to the Senate in 1946 and she held the various positions that he has outlined. As an ex-Whip, I would have to say that remaining Whip for 15 years shows a strength of character that I think is beyond the capacity of any other Whip I have met in this place and, again, it is quite remarkable that all who speak of her say that she left that experience the same nice person that she entered it. As I said, as an ex-Whip, and looking at the Whips in the chamber at the moment, I regard that as an outstanding achievement. Dame Annabelle Rankin was not married and one of her anecdotes touching on this is, I think, a reminder of the kindness and ease that she showed. She described in an interview in this biography-she obviously gave a series of long interviews for it-an incident when during a campaign speech a very irate women interjected: `I wish you would get married'. Her response was: `Madam, thank you so much for thinking so kindly of me. A number of people have said that to me but they have always been men'. It was the sort of gentle but very effective response that all of us would wish we were able to emulate. Dame Annabelle was a colleague of some honourable senators who are here still and, of course, was well known to some of the Queensland senators who are not her contemporaries in this place. I know that they wish to contribute to this motion of condolence. It is obvious that Dame Annabelle Rankin inspired affection and respect among her colleagues. She inspired the same feelings among her staff. I am pleased that two of them are able to be in the Senate today. They are Trish O'Connor, who is well known to many of us because of her work with not only Dame Annabelle Rankin but also subsequently the late Senator Ivor Greenwood, and Mr John Partridge who served her as a private secretary. It is a tribute to her that they wish to be in this place on this occasion. The Opposition is proud of the many firsts that were achieved by this notable senator from Queensland. She was a woman who in more difficult times for women made her achievements appear almost easy. We know that that cannot have been so and that she would have run up against the barriers that one always comes up against in political life. But she seemed to surmount those barriers with great grace and apparent ease. It is a matter of great regret to us that she has died but we are very grateful for the life that she led and for the contribution she made to Queensland and to Australia. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of the National Party of Australia I too support the motion moved by Senator Button and supported by Senator Chaney. As has already been indicated, Dame Annabelle Rankin was a woman of many firsts. I will not go over that ground. She came into the political scene at the end of World War II. Significantly, that was also a time when women were coming into the work force. I suppose one might say that that was out of necessity. Throughout World War II women were in the armed forces and were taking the place of men who had to serve in the armed forces. Once that had happened there was no going back. When she came onto the scene it was a time of retraining, rehabilitation and an acceptance of the fact that women were in the work force and were there to stay. From her point of view it was a time to make sure that, among many other things, there were better facilities for working women in this nation. The post-war period was also a time of assimilation of displaced persons who came here from other countries. That was a priority. Dame Annabelle took a personal interest in that and in the problems of migrants. In the book A Woman of Distinction, to which Senator Chaney referred, she mentions how when she was out shopping once she came across a young migrant girl in tears. It turned out that the girl could not make herself understood to the shop assistant. Dame Annabelle sat the girl down and asked her what she wanted. The girl said: `I want a thing to hold the cauliflower so that the water runs out and the cauliflower stays in'. Very shortly they were able to go and buy a colander. But then Dame Annabelle, in her inimitable style, said to the girl: `Why don't you come and play shop with me?' A time was then arranged for the girl to go to Dame Annabelle's house and there, in what soon developed into riotous play acting, the girl indicated the things that she would want in a normal household kitchen and these were taken from the shelf. From that play acting a bit of education in everyday English was achieved. Dame Annabelle also worked in support of handicapped people, particularly for facilities in their homes so that they could use whatever strengths and skills they each had in order to live as independent a life as possible. She also gave great encouragement to Dame Enid Lyons when she was fighting for child endowment for the first child. As a senator she was able to pursue these concerns at the highest level in our land. But that did not detract from her parliamentary duties. When she was elected in 1946-47 she and her Queensland Senate colleagues constituted the entire Opposition, which meant that she had a pretty heavy work load on top of the normal duties of a senator representing a State. As has been said, Dame Annabelle was a Whip. She described it as an interesting job but not an easy one. Indeed, in the book A Woman of Distinction, in relation to the history of the Whip, she stated: In England, in the days of one of the early Georges, and I can only give you this as I was told it, and purposely do not give the date because I am not sure, he was anxious about certain legislation which was going through the House of Commons. Knowing that the numbers were so vital for the government, he said to the member responsible for getting the numbers (he was not known as the Whip at that point), `Whip them from the hunting fields of England and the pleasant haunts of Paris', and so from that day onwards the term Whip became well known and the official term. She then stated: I can assure you that when I whipped I had nothing as exciting to contend with as the hunting fields of England or the pleasant haunts of Paris. I interpolate here that some of us who have had the job of Whip here have had some of the more pleasant restaurants of Canberra come in the way of a successful count. She also said that Whips trust each other. I suppose that is something that those of us who have been part of that exclusive group have all learned. If the whole House is in uproar, the Whips can sort it out and get the show back on the road provided they trust each other. Dame Annabelle was a contemporary of many people who are now famous names in our politics-Fadden, Menzies, Calwell and Hughes. Speaking of Hughes, she said: He, like everybody else, has failings. At times I am certain he was difficult and hard, but these failings make us more human. Dame Annabelle saw everybody as a human being. She did not look for faults in people but just accepted their make-up and the fact that faults are part of being a human being. She came into politics at a time when it was not as easy as it is at present. Quite rightly, many of us believe that it is not an easy job now. In those days travel was a lot harder. Most of the travel that she did around Queensland was by train, and it was before the time of diesel engines and air conditioning. She recalled that over and above the gold pass senators were allocated about #30 for travel which could be used on odd occasions for air fares. Of course, accommodation in the outback towns was not very good. As I have said, with only a few coalition members in the Senate, the work load was burdensome and constant. But she took her place and played her part. It has been said by the two previous speakers that she went on to become a Minister and then High Commissioner to New Zealand. I was privileged to represent my Party at her state funeral and, along with you, Mr President, to be one of the official pall-bearers. She was a great Australian and a great representative of my State of Queensland. Along with my colleagues, I offer my sympathy to her sister, Jean. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I support the condolence motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). I think we all agree that the death of Dame Annabelle Rankin brings to a close a remarkable life and career. It has already been mentioned that she was a trailblazer in many areas and a significant role model in others. Born in 1908, she came from a politically conscious family. It is perhaps because of that that she was spurred on and better able to take on the tasks that she set for herself. Her father, Colonel C. D. W. Rankin, was for many years a member of the Legislative Assembly for Burrum in the Queensland State Parliament, and he was also Minister for Railways. Dame Annabelle first entered Federal Parliament as a Liberal senator for Queensland in 1946. As Senator Button has already mentioned, a brief resume of her parliamentary career shows that she was Liberal Whip when her Party was in opposition and again when it took over government, and she was appointed Minister for Housing by Harold Holt. She retired from Parliament in 1971 and was appointed Australian High Commissioner to New Zealand. While for any individual this represents a remarkably distinguished career, it fails to reflect the really significant aspects of Dame Annabelle's career-her strength and the role that she played not only in the Parliament but elsewhere. In her 25 unbroken years in politics, Dame Annabelle, as has already been mentioned, was the first Queensland woman senator, the first woman Government Whip in any British Commonwealth Parliament and one of the few women Ministers in the Australian Federal Parliament. She was also the first woman appointed an Australian High Commissioner. This analysis of her career shows how significant a trailblazer she was. It is something that few of us today are likely to emulate but, I suspect, many of us would envy. We would certainly envy her strength of character. We would envy the purposefulness of a woman who was able to take all those things in her stride. Even today, women in politics are underrepresented but when Dame Annabelle Rankin began, she was one of the first female senators and the first woman incumbent of many important offices. Dame Annabelle, apart from contributing in the parliamentary and diplomatic spheres, was active in many community organisations, including the Girl Guides and the Red Cross. Throughout her life she maintained a particular interest in the welfare of young people, the disabled and the aged and was a regular advocate of their causes. Overall, Dame Annabelle was a pioneer, a significant role model for women, a magnificent contributor to Australian public life and community-minded in a way that we could all emulate. We much regret her passing and extend our sympathy to her sister. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I rise to support my colleagues in this condolence motion for Dame Annabelle Rankin. Dame Annabelle's life was characterised by service to the community. She was deeply involved in that service before she entered Parliament and, after a long and distinguished period in the Senate, she carried on that service after she retired from this place. In my lifetime, no Queensland senator has been better known, better loved or more respected than Dame Annabelle Rankin. Other honourable senators have spoken of her long parliamentary career. To me, she was a permanent part of Queensland political life. I first met her when I was a small schoolboy during the late 1940s shortly after she entered the Senate. She was a permanent part of the Queensland political scene during my adult life until her retirement in 1971, six years before I became a senator. I remember Annabelle as a warm, friendly, happy person with a great store of common sense. She had a great natural dignity but she was very approachable. Anyone could come up to her and get a warm welcome. She was a very great credit to the Liberal Party of Australia. She was a great credit to the Parliament and she was a great credit to Queensland. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —I should like to join other honourable senators in expressing my sympathy at the passing of Annabelle Rankin. I would particularly like to express my sympathy to her sister, Jean, and to her other relatives. I pay tribute to a remarkable person whom I was privileged to know from 1946 over the three decades of her public career. This Parliament has produced some remarkable women of achievement-Enid Lyons, who comes immediately to mind, Dorothy Tangney and, of course, Annabelle Rankin. One must think of Annabelle Rankin with happiness because she had the gift of happiness and friendship. When I think of her in the immediate post-war years, I think of a titian haired woman of considerable attractiveness, both of personality and of presence. I think of her twinkling, sparkling eyes which always managed to capture the happiness of the day and of the smile on her face, yet she had an ability to lead and command on both sides of the Senate. As other honourable senators have said, she attracted warmth, affection and love. Senator Chaney has expressed it best in remarking that perhaps the greatest tribute is not in the speeches we make here but in the fact that in the President's gallery we are privileged to have present two members of Dame Annabelle's ministerial staff whom we respect for their dedication and devotion. Trish O'Connor and John Partridge have travelled great distances and at great inconvenience to come here and to participate. We welcome their participation in this tribute. Annabelle Rankin had the capacity to attract devotion, dedication and that kind of friendship. Trish O'Connor sent me a note, which she will not mind my reading, which stated: Ben Chifley used to walk Dame Annabelle back home to the Hotel Kurrajong each night. As you would know, Mr President, from your long experience here, that signifies the kind of comradeship and bipartisanship that Dame Annabelle expressed in the Parliament. We often recite people's physical achievements, thinking that those are their monuments, rather than looking at their inherent personalities. It is remarkable that Dame Annabelle was a senator for 25 years, that during that time she was a party Whip for 17 years and was enormously respected as such, that for five years she was a Minister of the Crown-as Senator Button said, the first woman Minister; my memory is that Dame Enid Lyons was Vice-President of the Executive Council-and that she went on to be High Commissioner to New Zealand for four years. Those are great achievements but they are not the measure of the person. The measure is that those who walked and associated with Dame Annabelle are immensely the better for having known her. We are immensely the better for her friendship, the affection which she gave to us and the plain common sense which she brought to bear as a Senate Whip. We are the better for the fact that she was the best of colleagues. One could not have a warmer friend. Dame Annabelle was State Secretary of the Queensland Girl Guides. She was active in the Red Cross and in the Young Women's Christian Association. She was always active in matters of human concern. Her monument is that she will live in the hearts of all who knew her as a person of great affection, accomplishment and personality and, best of all, as a warm and reliable friend. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) —I cannot speak about Dame Annabelle Rankin as a colleague in the Senate but I speak of her as a woman senator from Queensland. I take this opportunity to pay my tribute to the late Dame Annabelle Rankin. She was the first woman senator from Queensland and served in the Senate for 25 years. She was the first woman Federal member of Parliament from Queensland. She was certainly a great Queenslander. She served her State with distinction. In fact she served the Senate and the Government of Australia. We have listened to many honourable senators pay tribute to Dame Annabelle-for her time as Whip in the Senate and as a Minister. When she completed her service in the Senate, she was appointed as the first woman High Commissioner to New Zealand, where she served Australia well and did much to foster good relations between our two countries. I first met Dame Annabelle Rankin at the Kingaroy show. My remembrance is that she was able to make the shortest speech I have ever heard made by anyone who opened a show. She did that very well and was certainly well thought of. I suppose that, from the show patrons' point of view, she was very well appreciated. Some months ago, before Dame Annabelle became sick, I had the pleasure of visiting her at her home at Deception Bay and had a happy morning tea with her. I visited her in hospital not long before her death. She was certainly far from well on that day, but she was able to speak to me and she certainly appreciated the fact that I had paid her a visit. I join other honourable senators in conveying sincere sympathy to her sister, Miss Jean Rankin, who has been a wonderful support to her sister over all these years. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —Having been a Whip in the Senate, I would like to pay tribute to Dame Annabelle Rankin. I met her, as did Senator MacGibbon, when I was a boy at school. I remember what a prepossessing and happy woman she was. I had two sisters who were in the Girl Guides, and we had contact with Dame Annabelle Rankin through that. I remember meeting her when travel was difficult in Queensland and when she went to Mount Morgan. I cannot recall anyone anywhere in Queensland who disliked her. I am thrilled that some of her staff members are here today, particularly Trish O'Connor, who was one of the first staff members I met here when she was working for the late Senator Ivor Greenwood. I am particularly thrilled that they are here to hear the tributes that are being paid to Dame Annabelle Rankin this afternoon. I pay mine to her as a great lady, a great servant of Queensland and someone whom we all respected. I pass on my condolences to her sister. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —One of the advantages, or maybe disadvantages, that I have in this place is that there is nobody but myself to speak on my behalf. As a young official thrashing around in the trade union movement the name Dame Annabelle Rankin was a familiar one in political circles. I did not know Dame Annabelle Rankin. The name itself was a delightfully sounding one. It has been a great pleasure for me to sit here and listen to the tributes that have been paid to this great figure, this person who has so obviously given of herself to the service of the people of Australia. It has been instructive to me to listen to those who knew her. I therefore am honoured to associate myself with the condolence motion which was moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) and so ably supported by other honourable senators. The PRESIDENT —I should like to pay my respects to the memory of the late Dame Annabelle Rankin because I had the honour to serve in the Senate with her from 1962, when I entered the Senate, until 1971, when she left the Senate to become the Australian High Commissioner to New Zealand. She was a lady who was held in the highest esteem, in the highest personal regard, by all senators on both sides of the House. She was a lady in the real sense of that word. She was a most competent and understanding Minister and one who was always pleased to see a back bencher in her office about constituency matters. She would always do whatever she could to accommodate the needs of the individual Australian citizen. I had the honour of visiting New Zealand in 1974 for the purpose of attending the funeral of a New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr Kirk, when Dame Annabelle Rankin was the Australian High Commissioner. I can tell honourable senators that she was an excellent ambassador for Australia. She knew on a personal basis every member of the New Zealand Parliament. Only last week, when speaking to the present Australian High Commissioner to New Zealand, my personal friend the Hon. Les Johnson, he mentioned the fact that Dame Annabelle Rankin these days is still highly talked of in New Zealand. As Senator Collard has said, in my capacity as President of the Senate I had the honour of being one of the pall-bearers at her funeral. She was a great and outstanding Australian. She was a wonderful and gracious lady. I pay tribute to her memory. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. The PRESIDENT —It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 7 September 1986, of the Hon. Leslie Harry Ernest Bury, CMG. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That the Senate express its deep regret at the death, on 7 September 1986, of the Honourable Leslie Harry Ernest Bury, CMG, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Wentworth from 1956 to 1974, and a former Minister of the Crown from 1961 to 1962 and 1963 to 1971, 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. Mr Leslie Bury was born on 25 February 1913 in London and was educated at Queen's College, Cambridge. He was elected to the Australian House of Representatives for the New South Wales seat of Wentworth, representing the Liberal Party of Australia, in the by-election that was held following the resignation of the Rt Hon. Sir Eric Harrison. He gave 17 years continuous service to the Parliament and held various ministerial portfolios to which I will refer without specifying the dates. He was Minister for Air, Minister for Housing, Minister for Labour and National Service, Treasurer and Minister for Foreign Affairs until the government of the day was defeated. He also had non-parliamentary involvements, in the same sorts of areas, I suppose, as Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Australian representative on the International Monetary Fund in Washington. He had senior Public Service posts in Canberra and was the President of the Australian Institute of International Affairs from 1949 to 1951. Mr Bury served in the Second World War in the Second Australian Imperial Force from 1943 to 1945. I have only passing or slightly dim recollections of Mr Bury as a Minister, but I think it is true to say that from everything that was said about him at the time and subsequently he was a very workmanlike and decent Minister in the way in which he performed his role. He was a long-standing and respected member of the House of Representatives and of the Parliament. On behalf of the Government, I extend to his widow and family sincere sympathy in their bereavement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition, I wish to support the motion of condolence which has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). He has already outlined the political career of Mr Bury. He was of a generation of politicians which I very greatly respected. As the Leader of the Government has said, he was born in England but he served in the Australian Imperial Force during the war. It was my dominant impression of this place when I used to visit it during my father's period in the Parliament that the ex-service generation had placed a very distinctive stamp on this Parliament. I think the same comments could have been made in speaking to the condolence motion for the late Dame Annabelle Rankin because, in effect, in her duties she worked with the forces in Queensland. Of that group of people who saw war service very few are left in this Parliament. I can think of Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Gietzelt, Senator Kilgariff, the Opposition Whip, and Senator Withers. When the Parliament was peopled largely by that ex-service generation, it was a place of far greater certainty and was, in a way, very much more attractive. It may be a difficult way in which to learn one's certainties about life, but I think those Australians who served in that way knew what they wanted for the country and brought an attitude and an approach to politics that I for one found very attractive. In many respects, it was superior to what we have been able to re-create with the next generation. Mr Bury was born in England, but he made a notable contribution to the country of his adoption. He came to Australia with a private bank. The Army took him away from that. Subsequently, he joined the then Department of External Affairs and then the Commonwealth Treasury. While working with the Treasury he became Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Australian representative on the International Monetary Fund. Therefore, he entered this Parliament with a substantial background and experience across a range of areas. That helps to explain the considerable contribution he made to government during his period as a member of parliament. Mr Bury succeeded Senator Shirley Walters's father to the seat of Wentworth. That is yet another of the personal threads that run through Australian political life and remind us what a numerically small society Australia has. He held a series of ministries, although his early ministerial career was broken by the fact that he contradicted Sir John McEwen in his concerns about the entry of Britain into the Common Market. It is one of my early recollections of politics that Mr Bury had to stand down from the Ministry and did not return to it until after the next election. After that time, he continued his ministerial career and held major portfolios. His return was to the difficult task of establishing a new department. He was the first of the Commonwealth Ministers for housing, and organised a new department. Again, it is a reminder of the smallness of the society in which we move that he handed over that Department to Senator the Honourable Dame Annabelle Rankin to whom we referred and whom we remembered earlier in debate. Mr Bury's contribution in all of those positions was of the nature indicated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. He was a most workmanlike politician. He was, in the view of his contemporaries, a man of great integrity. I know that he had the warm regard and respect of my father. When he was a candidate for Prime Minister, it was written of him that he would be firm in his judgments, uncompromising, but essentially fair and probably more humane than any other likely candidate. All that rings very true to me of the man I knew, although I did not know him well. I express to his widow and children the sympathy of the Opposition for the loss of a fine husband and father and a man who had the respect of his colleagues. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of the National Party of Australia, I wish to be associated with the motion. Both the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) have alluded to the long and distinguished career of Les Bury. Significantly, as has been said, he came to us from what was known then and still is a little as the old country, and we adopted him. More than that, he adopted this country. He did not just come out to Australia. He served this country in many fields as the opportunities arose, although I do not suppose that one saw World War II as an opportunity necessarily to serve one's country as one would wish. However, he played his part in that respect. He held various positions in the Public Service and had a long and distinguished parliamentary career. My Party and I 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 the Australian Democrats, I support the motion of condolence moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) on the death of Leslie Bury. Like the death of Dame Annabelle Rankin, the death of Leslie Bury brings to an end a very distinguished career in Australian public life, both in and outside the Parliament. As has been mentioned, before Mr Bury entered Parliament he was the Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Australian representative on the International Monetary Fund in Washington. He held various senior posts in the Public Service in Canberra, including with Treasury and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Along with Mr Bury's two-year presidency of the Canberra branch of the Australian Institute for International Affairs, his background and war service equipped him well for the parliamentary career that followed. As Federal Treasurer in the Gorton Government and later as Minister for Foreign Affairs, Leslie Bury was highly regarded. His earlier roles as Minister for Air, Minister for Housing and Minister for Labour and National Service show how versatile a parliamentarian he was. I join with other senators who have expressed their sympathy for his wife, Anne, and for their family in noting that we regret the passing of Leslie Bury. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —We are paying tribute to two very special people. Leslie Bury was a very special person-a person with qualities of character, intellect and integrity that deserve our full tribute today. In paying that tribute, I must also pay tribute to a magnificent wife, Anne Bury. She is an outstanding woman. She was an outstanding wife and supporter to Leslie and is an outstanding mother to four fine sons. When I think of the times concerning Leslie Bury, my memory goes to two events, especially the one when Sir Eric Harrison went to London. A person came to me and said: `A young economist representing Australia at the World Bank is called Leslie Bury. I wonder whether you would meet him and talk to him. He might be interested in Wentworth'. That is how we met. That was a journey of friendship that we come to know in this profession. More importantly, as has been mentioned today by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), I recall the incident when Leslie Bury sought to comment with difference from John McEwen regarding the European Economic Community. I recall vividly walking up and down Martin Place with the then Prime Minister, Mr Menzies, trying, in my amateur way, to talk him out of doing anything radical about Leslie Bury. We walked up and down Martin Place for about half an hour. I can still hear Mr Menzies-those honourable senators who knew him know of the cocked eyebrow and the thumb forward-saying: `You are very persuasive, my boy, but back to the surgery'. I knew that I had lost. But I had not lost, and this Parliament had not lost, because the quality of the man shone through. It was his integrity that led him to do that. It was his integrity that restored him to the Ministry afterwards. Perhaps it is a reflection on our standards that today that incident would not have been mentioned other than as a minor rebuke or perhaps a comment from some of us behind on the independence of spirit of the man himself. In my experience, Leslie Bury was a quiet man. I do not mirror that, sadly. He was a man to respect, a man to measure, and a man to judge. Most of us tend to be noisy. In every sense, he was a gentle man, yet with the firmness of his convictions and a very high intellect. He was a man of great compassion and concern for people. Therefore, he was admirably suited to an era in which post-war reconstruction tried to take away the harshness that had been of the depression years and the war years. Mr Bury achieved a great deal in his various portfolios. Sadly, in recent years, his health was poor. He was limited, therefore, in his ability to enjoy the fullness of life. I can only say that no man could have been luckier than he was to have had Anne as a wife, alongside him, and his four sons. I have benefited greatly from the friendship of Leslie Bury. This Parliament and the people of Australia will remember him as one of their outstanding members of parliament and citizens. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I knew Leslie Bury not as a member of parliament but as a member of the executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Those were the times when Albert Monk was President of the ACTU, Sir Harry Bland was Secretary to the Department of Labour and National Service and Leslie Bury was the Minister responsible for that Department. There is no doubt that, during discussions, it was perfectly clear that Leslie Bury had a very firm command of the potential importance of international labour institutions, such as the International Labour Organisation. Of course, at that time he was very much preoccupied with the other aspect of his portfolio-the national service aspect. That must have been a very worrying aspect. Nevertheless, honourable senators who were about at that time will recall that there were significant industrial problems as well, such as postal, transport, waterside and stevedoring problems. Of course, ultimately the portfolio responsibility for all of those problems rested with Leslie Bury. He gave his services to this country. His dedication to his task has been noted. I join other senators in this condolence motion and in conveying condolences to his wife and his family. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I lay on the table explanatory notes for the Department of the Parliamentary Library and certain executive departments and authorities on estimates for proposed expenditure for 1986-87. Senator BUTTON —(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)-In order to enable Estimates committees to meet, I move: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber, Estimates Committee B will meet in committee rooms 1 and 2 and Estimates Committee C will meet in committee room 6. Prior to the sittings of the committees the bells will be rung for three minutes. Senate adjourned at 4.14 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Aboriginal Development Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 235. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 232. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 233. Apple and Pear Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 219. Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 238, 246. Australian Citizenship Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 233. Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 242, 243, 244, 245. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination 1986 No. 2. Copyright Act-Declaration under paragraph 10A(1) (b), dated 5 June 1986. Customs Act-Notices 1986 Nos 6 and 7-Specified rate in respect to the diesel fuel rebate, dated 16 July 1986 and 28 July 1986. Dairy Produce Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 237. Defence Act- Declaration under regulation 49 of certain defence practice areas, dated 21 August 1986. Determinations 1986- No. 49-Attendance Allowance. No. 50-Sinai Allowance. No. 51-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and others. No. 52-Travelling Allowance and others. No. 53-Overseas Living Out Allowance and others. No. 54-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and others. No. 55-Overseas Rental and Utilities Allowance. Defence (Re-establishment) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 231. Dried Fruits Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 220. Excise Act-Notices 1986 Nos 9 and 12-Specified rate in respect to the diesel fuel rebate, dated 16 July 1986 and 28 July 1986. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1986 No. 8-Prescribed Goods (General) as amended (Amendment). Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 216. Fisheries Act- Fisheries Notice-No. 172-Variation of Fisheries Notice No. 163-Prohibition relating to the taking of shark, dated 21 August, 1986. Plan of Management-No. 10-Northern Prawn Fishery (Amendment). Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 236. International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 239, 240, 241. Judiciary Act-Rule of Court (Gazette No. S 429, 29 August 1986). Lands Acquisition Act- Land etc., acquired for- Defence purposes-Nowra, New South Wales. Pipeline Authority purposes-Young, Lithgow, Cowra, Orange, Blayney and Bathurst, New South wales. Statements (2) by the Minister, describing lands acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Maintenance Orders (Commonwealth Officers) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 230. Marriage Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 227, 229. Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 224. National Museum of Australia Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 217. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 226. Navigation Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 225. Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Marine Orders 1986-No. 12-Part 32-(Cargo and Cargo Handling-Equipment and Safety Measures). Oilseeds Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 221, 222. Public Service Act-Determinations 1986 Nos 57, 65, 68. Radio Communications Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 213. Re-establishment and Employment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 228. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Approval of a form of declaration under the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) Ordinance, dated 1 August 1986. Declaration under the Rates Ordinance, dated 1 September 1986. Determinations made under the following Ordinances- Optometrists, dated 18 August 1986. Motor Traffic, dated 20 August 1986. Stock, dated 20 August 1986. Pounds, dated 20 August 1986. Fishing, dated 20 August 1986. Nature Conservation, dated 20 August 1986. Rabbit Destruction, dated 20 August 1986. Lakes, dated 20 August 1986. Hawkers, dated 20 August 1986. Dog Control, dated 20 August 1986. Plumbers, Drainers and Gas Fitters Board, dated 20 August 1986. Architects, dated 20 August 1986. Scaffolding and Lifts, dated 20 August 1986. Machinery, dated 20 August 1986. Building, dated 20 August 1986. Dangerous Goods, dated 20 August 1986. Building and Services, dated 20 August 1986. Water Rates, dated 20 August 1986. Weights and Measures dated 20 August 1986. Credit, dated 20 August 1986. Sale of Motor Vehicles, dated 20 August 1986. Lotteries, dated 20 August 1986. Co-operative Societies, dated 20 August 1986. Agents, dated 20 August 1986. Liquor, dated 20 August 1986. Poker Machine Control, dated 20 August 1986. Racecourses, dated 20 August 1986. Real Property, dated 20 August 1986. Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages, dated 20 August 1986. Adoption of Children, dated 20 August 1986. Surveyors, dated 20 August 1986. Roads and Public Places, dated 20 August 1986. Australian Capital Territory Motor Omnibus Services, dated 22 August 1986. Sewerage Rates, dated 1 September 1986. Ordinances 1986- No. 46-Betting (Totalizator Agency) (Amendment). No. 47-Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment). No. 48-Motor Omnibus Services (Amendment). No. 49-Tobacco Products (Health Warnings). No. 50-Radiation (Amendment). No. 51-Optometrists (Amendment). No. 52-Domestic Violence. No. 53-Domestic Violence (Miscellaneous Amendments). No. 54-Statutory Authorities (Temporary Provisions). No. 55-Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment). Regulations 1986- No. 13-(Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance). No. 14-(Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance). No. 15-(Apprenticeship Ordinance). No. 16-(Optometrists Ordinance). No. 17-(Credit Ordinance). No. 18-(Credit Ordinance). No. 19-(Credit Ordinance). No. 20-(Liquor Ordinance). No. 21-(Bookmakers Ordinance). States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 25 August 1986. Statutory Rules Publication Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 218. Superannuation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 234. Telecommunications Act-By-laws-Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 70. Governor-General's Proclamation-Commencement of Sections of Acts: A Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following sections of Acts to come into operation on the date specified: Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1986- Section 5 and- (a) the amendments of sections 46, 148d and 424 of the Navigation Act 1912; and (b) the repeal of sections 86, 87, 100, 105 to 107 (inclusive), 111, 112, 114, 115, 179, 181, 387b and 398 of the Navigation Act 1912, effected by the first-mentioned Act-1 September 1986 (Gazette No. S 435, 1 September 1986.) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 692) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: (1) When did organochlorine pesticides first become of concern to environmental health authorities in this country. (2) When did the National Health and Medical Research Council commence to support a long standing policy of the Australian Agricultural Council for phasing out of such materials. (3) What actual materials have been phased out since that date; what have been their substitutes and when has each individual instance taken place. (4) Who has conducted further review into the health hazards of such substances, when did that review start and when is it expected to be completed? (See answer to Question on Notice No. 422, Hansard, 7 November 1985, p. 1804). Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The potential for residues of organochlorine pesticides in food was recognised by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) as part of the Survey of Pesticide Residues in the Total Diet commissioned at the sixty-eighth Session in May 1969. The report of the Survey presented to the seventy-third Session in October 1971 resulted in a recommendation to the States for control of certain organochlorine pesticides. Subsequent Market Basket Surveys have shown a decline in the residues of organochlorine pesticides in foods, indicating that action taken to restrict use of these chemicals has been successful in this regard. (2) The NHMRC has supported the policies of the Australian Agricultural Council since its inception in the 1960s. At its seventy-third Session in October 1971, the NHMRC noted that steps had been taken by State Departments of Agriculture to prevent contamination of food by organochlorine pesticides. (3) My Department has collated information which will be deposited in the parliamentary library. Information provided by State authorities indicates that none of these pesticides has been totally phased out; it does show that the majority of agricultural uses have ceased. Information on substitute chemicals is difficult to obtain and would require considerable additional efforts by the States. (4) The current NHMRC review of organochlorine pesticides began in December 1985. Recommendations of relevant expert committees were considered by the Public Health Committee of NHMRC in March 1986. Whilst the current information on aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane and heptachlor suggested that further restrictions on the use of these compounds are warranted, it is insufficient to justify precipitate action. It was further felt that any future actions should be scientifically based on hazards estimated from actual exposure data. Accordingly the Public Health Committee proposed the following action: a. Agricultural Uses The Australian Agicultural Council will be requested to provide justification for continuation of the specific uses of these products in agriculture which could give rise to pesticide residues in food directly or indirectly. b. Household Uses All State and Territory Governments will be asked to investigate the domestic uses of these compounds with a view to curtailing or further restricting their availability to the general public through relevant State and Territory legislation. c. Urban Uses State and Territory Governments will also be asked to investigate the uses of these compounds in the domestic pest control industry and the resultant human exposure which could arise from such usage. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission will be asked to investigate the occupational aspects of use of these compounds, particularly by the urban pest control industry. Information on current uses and their needs, resultant human exposure and the hazards of alternative products has been requested and will be evaluated as soon as possible. The Public Health Committee believes that when this information is available, the expert NHMRC committees would be well placed to reach sound conclusions and provide further advice on the necessity for further regulation of these compounds. (Question No. 786) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) What is the name, designation and salary of each member of the staff of: (a) the Prime Minister; (b) the Ministry; (c) the Caucus Secretaries; (d) the Government Party Committees; (e) the Leader of the Opposition; (f) the Shadow Ministry; (g) the Government and Opposition backbenchers; (h) the Australian Democrats; and (i) Senator Harradine (2) Which staff members are permanent public servants. (3) What was their level prior to taking up their present positions. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided an answer to the honourable senator's question. [The information which has been collated for the honourable senator is too lengthy to be published in Hansard. Copies are available at the Senate Table Office.] (Question No. 826) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, 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 Gietzelt —The following response has been provided by the Minister for Territories to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are 53 statutory authorities which currently exist under the auspices of my Department. (2) The following is a list of current statutory authorities created by legislation under my responsibility: ACT Architects Board ACT Bushfire Council* ACT Credit Tribunal* ACT Electricity Authority ACT Fire Brigade* ACT Fire Brigade Appeal Board* ACT Fire Brigade Promotions Appeal Board ACT Gaming and Liquor Authority ACT Health Authority ACT Schools Authority* Agents Board of the ACT* Air Pollution Advisory Committee Apprenticeship Board Australian Federal Police (Liaison Advisory) Committee Bookmakers Licensing Committee* Building and Construction Long Service Leave Board Building Review Committee* Building Standards Committee Canberra Public Cemeteries Trust Canberra Retail Markets Trust Canberra Theatre Trust Chiropracters Board* Christmas Island Assembly Christmas Island Services Corporation Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council Community Health Services Board Consumer Affairs Council of the ACT Dental Board* Design and Siting Review Committee Drug Advisory Committee Hospital Services Board Land Commissioner Medical Board* Milk Authority of the ACT National Capital Development Commission National Capital Planning Committee National Exhibition Centre Trust Nominal Defendant Nominal Insurer Nurses Registration Board* Optometrists Board* Parliament House Construction Authority Pharmacy Board Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Physiotherapists Board* Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board* Pollution Control Authority Publications Review Board* Radiation Council Surveyors Board of the ACT Veterinary Surgeons Board* Water Pollution Advisory Committee Workmen's Compensation Supplementation Fund* * See answer to questions (4) and (6) (3) Apart from the avenues provided by law for the review of administrative decisions, the following Ordinances provide for review of certain decisions of statutory authorities: (a) REVIEW BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL 1. ORDINANCE 2. STATUTORY AUTHORITY 3. SUBJECT MATTER OF REVIEW 1. ACT Credit Ordinance 1985 2. ACT Credit Tribunal 3. Various decisions of the Credit Tribunal as follows: grant, refusal to grant, cancellation, suspension or removal of a suspension of a credit provider's licence or a finance broker's licence; imposition, revocation, variation, non-revocation or non-variation of a condition or restriction on such licences; grant, refusal to grant or imposition of a condition for the grant of an authority to carry on the business of a deceased licensee; the taking of or refusal to take disciplinary action against a licensee or related person. 1. Electricity Ordinance 1971 2. ACT Electricity Authority 3. Various decisions of the Electricity Authority relating to the sale, hire, installation and connection of articles of electrical equipment. 1. Bookmakers Ordinance 1985 2. Bookmakers Licensing Committee 3. Refusal to grant a standing licence; suspension or cancellation of a standing licence. 1. Chiropractors Registration Ordinance 1983 2. Chiropractors Board 3. Refusal to terminate the suspension of a person or to set aside an order suspending registration on health grounds; refusal to permit an extension of the period during which an executor, administrator or trustee may carry on the business of a deceased chiropractor; refusal to authorize the registration, or order the re-registration, of a person; cancellation of the registration of a person; suspension of the registration of a person otherwise than under section 24 (2); reprimanding a person; refusal to grant temporary registration to a person or refusing to renew a temporary registration. 1. Dentists Registration Ordinance 1931 2. Dental Board 3. Refusal to register or re-register; cancellation of registration; reprimanding a person; suspension of registration otherwise than under section 31 (2); refusal to grant or renew special registration, refusal to extend time practice can continue to allow administration of estate of deceased dentist. 1. Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) Ordinance 1981 2. Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board 3. Various decisions. 1. Medical Practitioners Registration Ordinance 1930 2. Medical Board 3. Refusal to register or re-register; cancelling the registration of a person; reprimand; suspension of registration otherwise than under section 31 (2); refusal to grant or renew special registration; refusal to grant or renew temporary registration; refusal to approve or withdrawal of approval of a qualified person as a medical officer; suspension of registration of medical practitioner on health grounds; refusal to extend period during which executor, administrator or trustee may carry on the business of deceased medical practitioner. 1. Mental Health Ordinance 1983 (Appeal provisions not yet in operation) 2. ACT Health Authority 3. Refusal to grant a licence under Part VIII of the Ordinance relating to the control of private health facilities; cancellation of a licence under Part VIII; refusal to restore a licence under Part VIII; variation or revocation, or refusal under section 63 (1) to vary or revoke a condition specified in a licence under Part VIII; making or refusing under section 63 (1) to make a licence under Part VIII subject to a condition. 1. Nurses Registration Ordinance 1933 2. Nurses Registration Board 3. Refusal to register, or to re-register; refusal to enrol person as a nursing aide; removal of nurse's name from Register; removal of a nurse's aide's name from Roll; caution or censure of Board; suspension of registration; refusal to issue or to renew a temporary registration. 1. Optometrists Ordinance 1956 2. Optometrists Board 3. Refusal to register or restore registration; cancellation or suspension of registration; refusal to extend time practice can continue to allow administration of estate of deceased Optometrist; refusal to grant or renew special registration. 1. Physiotherapist Registration Ordinance 1977 2. Physiotherapists Board 3. Refusal of certificate; cancellation of registration, suspension of registration other than under section 29 (5), reprimand; order not to perform specified services; refusal to extend period for executor to continue business; refusal to grant or renew provisional or temporary registration; refusing to register or re-register, to grant or review provisional or temporary or special registration. 1. Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board Ordinance 1982 2. Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board 3. Refusal to issue or cancellation of a certificate of competency; refusal to issue a licence; cancelling or suspending a licence, other than under section 32. 1. Radiation Ordinance 1983 2. Radiation Council 3. Various decisions. 1. Surveyors Ordinance 1967 2. Surveyors Board 3. Decisions as to fees and charges. (b) Review by bodies other than the Administrative Appeals Tribunal 1. Review body 2. Legislation conferring right of appeal 3. Subject matter of review 1. ACT Fire Brigade Appeal Board 2. Fire Brigade (Administration) Ordinance 1974 3. Determinations of Commissioner regarding disciplinary offences, dismissal or reduction in rank or salary of member. 1. Building Review Committee 2. Building Ordinance 1972 3. Decisions of Building Controller. 1. Health Authority Promotions Appeal Boards 2. Health Authority Ordinance 1985 3. Appeals against provisional promotions of staff by Authority and decisions of Authority on officers' complaints. 1. Cinematograph Board of Review 2. Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations 3. To review decisions of the Censorship Board, a member or a Deputy Censor. 1. Publications Review Board 2. Classification of Publications Ordinance 3. Decisions of classifications officers. 1. Design and Siting Review Committee 2. Buildings (Design and Siting) Ordinance 1964 3. Decisions of the National Capital Development Commission. 1. Supreme Court of the ACT 2. Liquor Ordinance 1975 3. Decisions of the ACT Gaming and Liquor Authority regarding issue, cancellation, suspension, transfer and conditions of licences and permits; directions given to licensees; closure of licensed premises, granting of leave and making of declarations. 1. Supreme Court of the ACT 2. Poker Machine Control Ordinance 1975 3. Decisions of the ACT Gaming and Liquor Authority regarding issue or renewal of licences, suspension and cancellation of licences, permits for poker machines; issue or cancellation of Repairman's Certificate. 1. Magistrates Court of the ACT 2. Apprenticeship Ordinance 3. Decisions of Apprenticeship Board. (4) and (6) The Attorney-General's Department has advised that, unless an authority is statutorily protected, it is liable for the torts of its servants committed in the course of their duty. Where employees, acting in the course of their duty are incompetent and, as a consequence, loss is suffered by a member of the public, it will commonly be found that the act or omission which was seen as incompetent was also tortious. For example, incompetent driving would probably be tortious. In the absence of a denial of liability the negligent giving of erroneous advice is tortious where the advice is given by a person having a duty of care to one who suffers foreseeable damage as a result of reasonably relying on that advice. Many other forms of incompetence would also be tortious, but each case would need to be considered on its own facts. The members of the statutory authorities marked with an asterisk in the list given in (2) above, have some degree of statutory protection from suit. Whether this protection extends to the statutory authority itself and extends to immunity from liability for a tort is a question of law to be decided on the particular facts of each case. (5) As at 31/7/86, two. Based on past experience, it is expected that the Tribunal will proceed to the hearings of these matters within 4 to 8 weeks of the applicants indicating their readiness to proceed. The cost of answering this question is estimated at $800. (Question No. 932) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) Has the area which was designated in the original design for the new and permanent Parliament House as a nuclear shelter been retained in the present design in its original structural form. (2) If the structural form of the area has been altered, could it still be used as a nuclear shelter in the event of a nuclear emergency. (3) If such an area exists in the present design, how is it proposed to be finished, and to what use is it intended to be put. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There has never been a nuclear shelter in the design for the new Parliament House. The original design competition documents did contain a requirement for 400 square metres to be allocated to a National Civil Defence Shelter to safeguard personnel and documents in the event of a natural disaster or Act of War. The Joint Standing Committee on the new Parliament House deleted the requirement in 1981. (2) Later in 1981 the then Government considered that provision should be made for some form of command centre to be provided within the building at some time in the future. The Parliament House Construction Authority was directed to provide an excavated basement space of 1800 square metres to meet this contingency. No specific anti-nuclear provisions were involved. (3) The present Government reviewed the matter in 1983 and the excavated basement area concerned will be used to provide an underground carpark and secure storage area. (Question No. 1010) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: What action, if any, was taken against the responsible members of the staff or management of radio station 2JJJ following its broadcast of extracts from stolen Higher School Certificate examination papers in 1985. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice received from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: It should be appreciated that the ABC advised me at the time of the incident that no Higher School Certificate examination questions were quoted during 2JJJ's reporting of the story. Subsequently, senior executives of the ABC considered in detail the course of events surrounding the Higher School Certificate examination controversy and the reporting of it by 2JJJ. The actions of the staff involved were carefully reviewed and there were lengthy deliberations about all aspects of the incident with those concerned. After taking into account all the issues involved, management decided that disciplinary action was not appropriate. (Question No. 1030) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 April 1985: (1) Has the Minister for Health given serious consideration to the submission by the Australian Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital, that parental accommodation fees in hospitals should be included in all Australian Health Insurance Schemes as part of basic hospital tables. (2) Has the liberalisation of hospital rules in connection with hospitalised children been a resounding success. (3) When parental accommodation is provided, does it not overcome the trauma suffered by children who undergo operations, help them mentally and hasten their recovery. (4) Is the introduction of such a scheme to cover parental accommodation actually saving money. (5) Has the suggestion been made that it should be left to State Health Authorities to waive parental accommodation hospital charges; if so, why, in view of the fact that there is a Federal Health Insurance Scheme. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I have not recently received from the Association any submission concerning parental accommodation fees in hospitals, although I have seen and previously considered a submission, of July 1983, entitled ``Submission on Parental Accommodation Fees''. Benefits in accordance with the basic tables operated by private health insurance funds are only payable in respect of in-patients, that is, generally speaking, persons who occupy a bed in a hospital for the purpose of hospital treatment. The same principle applies to the Commonwealth bed day subsidy applicable to persons accommodated in private hospitals overnight. Parents accompanying their children in hospital are not in-patients and, therefore, are ineligible for benefits. There is no proposal to change this long standing position. However private health funds are free to offer a benefit under their supplementary or ancillary tables in respect of parental accommodation fees in hospital if they wish. (2-3) Reports in the health and medical literature confirm that children are helped to overcome the trauma associated with hospitalisation and treatment by having a parent constantly present. (4) While such a scheme would appear to have potential for saving money I am not aware of any evidence to support this or to show that savings offset increased costs. I do not believe the main rationale for such a scheme is cost savings, rather it is, and should be, better care. (5) This matter was raised at the Second Meeting of the Australian Health Services Council held in Darwin on 19 July 1984. Council agreed that the level or waiver of hospital charges for parental accommodation was a State matter and noted that the States had a policy of waiving charges in cases of hardship and would continue to do so. (Question No. 1037) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) Is the Tasmanian Government, through the Silicon Development Bill and the Environment Protection Amendment Bill taking away the right of appeal against development decisions from Australian citizens resident in Tasmania. (2) Is the Commonwealth Government prepared to issue export licences to companies such as Pioneer Silicon Industries Pty. Ltd, where contrary decisions by the Tasmanian Environment Protection Appeal Board may be over-ridden by the Tasmanian Government. (3) In the light of Tasmanian Government legislation which seeks to negate the effect of Environmental Impact Statements, will the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment ensure that Commonwealth Environmental Impact Statements be mandatory for any industries which involve import, export, or foreign developers. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I understand that the Tasmanian legislation referred is now concerned only with the `right of appeal' against the decision to proceed with the Tasmanian Silicon Smelters proposal. (2) There is no requirement for a Commonwealth export licence for the export of silicon. (3) The need for an Environmental Impact Statement is determined in accordance with criteria set out in paragraph 3.1.2. of the Administrative Procedures under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. The Act will continue to be applied to environmentally significant proposals which involve a Commonwealth decision or action. (Question No. 1088) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) What is the proposed program for Postal facilities in the South Tuggeranong area. (2) What is the timing of these proposed services. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission: (1) Australia Post plans to provide for the establishment of a post office agency at the Calwell Group Shopping Centre. Other postal facilities will be provided when development in other areas of South Tuggeranong reaches the stage which meets Australia Post's criteria for the provision of such facilities. (2) The post office agency at the Calwell Group Shopping Centre is programmed for opening in 1989. However, there are postal facilities in close proximity for most South Tuggeranong residents. Nearby facilities are the Wanniassa Post Office at the Erindale Shopping Centre and a post office agency at the Kambah Village. (Question No. 1128) 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 cost and details of each project funded or proposed to be funded in the Hunter and Illawarra regions, under the Steel Regions Assistance Program, concerning- (a) tourism and related industries; and (b) training for those industries. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) Tourism and related industries: Projects approved to date Hunter Region. Staff salaries ($250,000)-employment of officers in the NSW Tourism Commission to develop Steel Regions Assistance Program (SRAP) projects. Richmond Main Colliery ($898,000)-restoration of the Richmond Main Colliery, near Cessnock, as a tourist site. Feasibility Studies for Hunter Region SRAP projects ($153,500). Hunter Marketing and Promotions Plan ($400,000)-a program of market research, regional advertising and promotion to develop the Region's tourism potential-year one only. Tourist Information Centres at Cessnock ($46,000), Scone ($67,000) and Merriwa ($80,000)-tourist information centres at the gateways to the Hunter region. The Merriwa centre will include an historic bottle collection museum. William IV Steamship Replica ($250,000)-construction of a replica of the first steamship constructed in Australia. To operate as a tourist vessel and working museum. Shortland Wetlands Canoe Trail ($167,000)-a canoe trail in the Shortland Wetlands educational and recreational centre. Hunter Regional Signposting ($200,000)-tourism signposting throughout the Hunter Region-year one. Illawarra Region Kiama Genealogical Centre ($261,000)-a genealogical advisory and research centre at Kiama. Staff Salaries ($250,000)-employment of officers in the NSW Tourism Commission to develop SRAP projects. Illawarra Regional Tourism Signposting ($100,000)-tourism signposting in the Illawarra Region. Gerringong Boat Harbour-Stage 1 ($90,000)-upgrading of the Gerringong boat harbour. Bulli Information Bay ($60,000)-construction of a tourist information bay at Bulli. Mittagong Tourist Information Centre ($30,000)-extensions to the tourist information centre at Mittagong. Brandon Park ($713,000)-development of a major sporting complex at Brandon Park near Wollongong. Lake Illawarra South Foreshore Development ($150,000)-redevelopment of the Southern foreshores of Lake Illawarra to increase tourist potential of the region. Feasibility Studies for Illawarra Region SRAP projects ($355,000). Illawarra Tourist Promotion and Marketing Plan ($160,000)-a program of market research, regional advertising and promotion to develop the region's tourist potential. Mittagong Mineral Springs/Iron Ore Museum ($170,000). The NSW Government has applied for SRAP funding for a number of additional projects and these are being evaluated by the Commonwealth. (b) There is no explicit training element in any SRAP tourism project funded or proposed. (Question No. 1134) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, 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 the 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 Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based partly on advice from the statutory authorities within the Communications portfolio and from Aussat Pty Ltd: The Department of Communications has not made available any grants to any trade union body or related organisation in any of the financial years listed in the question. The Department has, however, made funds available in the form of air fares and travel allowance to various staff associations for their attendance, in Canberra, at Joint Consultative Committee Meetings. Their attendance was required as a part of the implementation of Industrial Democracy and Equal Employment Opportunity. These payments, made in accordance with the Public Service Memorandum of 31 August 1984, were as follows: (1) Professional Officers Association: $360.10 (2) Australian Telecommunications Employees Association: $698.40 (3) Administrative and Clerical Officers Association: $299.90 (4) Telecommunications and Technical Officers Association: $232.80 (5) Australian Public Service Association: $292.45 The payments were made during the 1985-86 financial year. No grants or funds were made available to any trade union body or related organisation by any statutory authority or organisation for which the Communications portfolio is responsible during the financial years listed in the question. (Question No. 1141) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) How many black South Africans were killed during disturbances in the years 1983, 1984, 1985 and so far in 1986. (2) How many black South Africans were seriously injured in such conflicts during the same period of time. (3) How many white South Africans were either killed or seriously injured in such conflicts during the same period of time. (4) What information is available to the Australian Government on the activities of the Afrikaner Resistance Organisation which was described in the Sydney Morning Herald on 2 June 1986 as ``extreme right wing''. (5) Has any consideration been given to the Australian Government taking similar action to that of the Canadian Government, in May 1986, to withdraw its Ambassador from South Africa because of Pretoria's military raids on alleged guerilla's bases in Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe which in almost every identifiable case has proved to be a nebulous action. (6) Will the Australian Government give consideration to imposing total trade sanctions against the minority white South African regime as a matter of urgency in line with the known wishes of the black majority. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (3) According to official South African figures, the number of people killed during disturbances was: 1983-No figures were kept because the level of unrest was very low 1984-149 1985-824 1986-1049 (to 6 August) Figures are not available on a racial basis but it is generally accepted that only a few whites have been killed. The official figures are generally regarded as a conservative estimate because of uncertainty concerning the circumstances surrounding most deaths. (2) and (3) The official figures for the number of people injured during disturbances are: 1983-No figures were kept because the level of unrest was very low 1984-651 1985-2615 1986-No figures available These figures are not regarded as reliable because of the confusion surrounding many incidents of unrest and because many people who are injured do not seek treatment at government clinics and hospitals for fear of being reported to the police. Figures are not available on a racial basis but it is generally accepted that few whites have been injured. (4) The Africaner Weerstandsbeweging (which means ``Afrikaner Resistance Movement'') was formed in 1972 by disaffected members of the governing National Party. The particular issue which prompted the formation of the AWB was the dialogue with other African states which was then being pursued by the Prime Minister, B. J. Vorster. Its members also believed that the National Party was generally becoming too accommodating towards blacks. The AWB has never attracted a large following but it has risen to occasional prominence because of the extreme and racist views of its members and because of the involvement of some of its members in violence. In 1983 two former members were convicted of offences under the Terrorism Act and sentenced to 15 years jail each. In the same year the leader of the AWB, Mr Eugene Terreblanche, was given suspended sentences after being convicted of two offences related to the illegal possession of firearms. The AWB has become more prominent during the last couple of years. It has held public rallies to protest against the government's reform program and to advocate the greater use of force in suppressing black unrest and black political dissent. (5) The Government condemned in strong terms the South African attacks on Zimbabwe, Zambia and Botswana. The Government was particularly concerned because the raids effectively ended the efforts of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group to promote dialogue and negotiation in South Africa. A number of possible measures against South Africa were considered at the time, including the temporary withdrawal of the ambassador, but the Government decided to wait until Commonwealth heads of government had considered the report of the Eminent Persons Group before making any decisions. The meeting in London agreed on eleven measures which should be applied against South Africa and the Government is now considering their implementation. (6) The Government is prepared to support comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa in the United Nations context. Australia has voted in favour of such sanctions in the Security Council because this is the best way to ensure that they are applied universally. Pending international agreement on mandatory economic sanctions the Government has imposed a broad range of voluntary measures in concert with other members of the Commonwealth. (Question No. 1204) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 June 1986: (1) In which wars or warlike operations since World War 2 have-(a) tanks; (b) other armoured fighting vehicles; and (c) field artillery not been used by either or both combatants. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The provision of an answer to Senator Jessop's question covering a period of 30 years and most areas of the world, would involve substantial and detailed historical research which does not lie within the prime functions of the Department of Defence. I am not willing to make resources available for that research. Senator Walsh —On 2 June 1986 (Hansard, page 3139) Senator Walters asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question without notice regarding Building Labourers Federation assets. Senator Walters asked: The Minister will be aware of the report given wide publicity in the media on the day the Builders Labourers' Federation was deregistered that $1.5m was withdrawn from the union's bank in Melbourne. I am reliably informed that assets of the BLF in New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory total approximately $10m. Will the Minister inform the Senate what steps the Government is taking to ensure that these funds are returned to the persons who were financial members of the union at the time the union was deregistered and not used by the members of the Executive of the BLF for their own benefit or to fund industrial disputes within other unions and within industry generally, to the detriment of the Australian work force and its employers? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The legislation passed by the Parliament during the last Sittings cancelling the registration of the Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation (``the Federation'') does not contain any provision expressly dealing with the disposal or redistribution of the assets of the Federation. Sub-section 4 (1) of the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Act 1986 provides, however, for sub-section 143 (6) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 to continue to apply to the Federation. That sub-section provides that, subject to certain circumstances, the property of an organization which has had its registration cancelled shall be held and applied by the unregistered association in accordance with the constitution and rules of the organization insofar as they can be observed after deregistration. At this stage, the assets of the Federation remain with the Federation and under its control. Moreover the Commonwealth has no power in respect of the assets of the Federation located in the States. The Commonwealth could legislate in respect of those assets of the Federation located in the Territories, but the need to do so has not arisen. The Government will continue to monitor the situation and will determine what action it should take if necessary circumstances arise. Legislative action in respect of the assets of the Federation located in the States is a matter for the respective State Governments. (Question No. 711) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: (1) What was the number, by Division and State, for the 1984 Federal election, of the following- (a) electors who failed to vote; (b) fines imposed; (c) summonses for failure to vote that were, or have been issued; (d) cases dealt with by the Courts; and (e) convictions. (2) Is there an increase in failure to vote cases from the 1984 election going to court, by comparison with the previous 3 elections. (3) Has there been any change in policy regarding failure to vote cases, particularly in procedures relating to those which are to go to court. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) To give the complete picture of non-voter action undertaken by the Australian Electoral Commission, I have provided the senator with copies of Election Form 59's (Enforcement of Compulsory Voting) for each Division and State. So that these forms can be more easily interpreted, copies of supporting documentation (Forms 40, 41, 42 and 43) have also been provided. Copies of the forms and supporting documentation have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. (2) There was not a consistent pattern of increase in failure to vote cases in the 1984 elections in comparison to the previous 3 elections; some Divisions recorded an increase in the number of cases going to court, whilst others recorded a decrease. (3) In all States except New South Wales there has been no change in policy regarding failure to vote cases. In New South Wales, cases were rarely taken to court in the past. Now, all cases in which the Australian Electoral Officer did not determine the penalty because the elector declined to have him do so, or the deposit was not paid, or the elector expressed a desire to have the case heard by a court, are taken to court. (Question No. 740) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 3 December 1985: Can the Minister for Resources and Energy detail what avenues of assistance may be forthcoming from both State and Federal Governments to aid the tin mining industry, which has been hard-hit by world trade movements. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Commonwealth Government announced on 3 March that it has agreed to provide $1 million in financial assistance to small scale tin producers within Australia who are experiencing difficulty in rationalising their mining operations in the wake of the collapse in world tin prices. The Commonwealth assistance scheme is in the form of an interest subsidy on commercial loans and leasing arrangements for mine relocation and restructuring, and should assist small scale tin producers to maintain their viability through restructuring and diversifying their mining operations. The assistance provides for a 50 per cent interest subsidy on a loan of up to $20,000 to a maximum subsidy payment of $8,000 per eligible tin producer. Following representations from the small scale tin mining industry and discussions with the Queensland Government, the Government considered the arrangements for this scheme and on 6 June announced a number of changes. The Government agreed to delete the initial requirement that, to be eligible for assistance, small scale tin producers undertake to relinquish their tin leases by 30 September 1989. The Government's decision recognises that the original provision to relinquish tin leases would prevent miners from diversifying/restructuring without the added security of existing tin leases and associated assets, and that some diversified/restructured operations would not be commercially viable without access to existing tin leases. A further change to the scheme is that, in view of the continued uncertainty in the tin market, and the time delay since the scheme was initially announced, the Government has agreed to backdate the subsidy on relevant borrowings and lease payments to 24 October 1985. The scheme will be administered by State Governments who currently have before them draft Financial Agreements to provide for the allocation of Commonwealth funding for the scheme. Once the States have agreed to these, it is expected the scheme will be in place shortly thereafter. In Queensland, where the majority of Australia's small scale tin producers are located, the Commonwealth's assistance package is designed to complement a package of concessions announced by the Queensland Government on 4 February 1986 which provided for the deferral of royalties and mining lease rentals until 30 September 1986, and the writing off of interest and penalties associated with the deferral of these payments. The Queensland Government recently announced an extension of the period for deferral of royalties and lease rentals to 30 September 1987. The concessions offered by the State also provide that existing tin producers who leave the industry before 30 September 1987 will not be required to pay royalties on tin produced after 24 October 1985, and if mining leases or claims are surrendered the rental due for 1986 and 1987 will also be written off. (Question No. 954) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 12 March 1986: (1) What funds were originally allocated to assist the International Tin Council in London. (2) Can these funds, or a percentage thereof, now be re-directed to assist the Australian tin industry. (3) How will the announced $1m interest subsidy assist North Queensland tin miners who believe they can survive the present crisis if they are adequately assisted. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) On 3 March 1986 the Commonwealth Government announced it had agreed to participate in a proposal aimed at resolving the international tin crisis (the ``TINCO'' proposal), subject to similar action by the 22 member countries of the International Tin Council (ITC) and its creditor banks and brokers. Australia's share of the funds required to implement the proposal would have been about #Sterling 5.3 million. However, the proposal was not successful owing to the ITC's subsequent failure to arrive at a consensus on the proposed rescue package. (2) No. The funds allocated by the Government to provide for Australia's contribution to the ``TINCO'' proposal were appropriated for that purpose. However, the Government has agreed to provide financial assistance to small scale tin producers within Australia experiencing difficulties as a result of the international tin crisis (see 3 below, and the answer to Senate Question on notice 740, for details). (3) The Commonwealth's assistance scheme, which offers a 50 per cent subsidy on the interest on a loan of up to $20,000, to a maximum subsidy payment of $8,000 per eligible tin miner, is designed to assist small scale tin producers by facilitating debt reconstruction and assisting them to achieve viability through restructuring and diversifying their mining operations. It will complement a package of concessions being offered by the Queensland Government by way of deferral of royalties and lease rentals. (Question No. 961) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) Is information available on the number of firearms in Australia; if so, what was the total number of firearms registered in each State and Territory at the latest available date. (2) How do the firearm numbers in (1) compare with numbers in previous years. (3) What were the separate numbers of pistols, rifles and shotguns, in respect of the information in (1) and (2) above. (4) How do numbers of firearms registered in Australia compare with those in other countries in per capita terms. (5) Are estimates available of the numbers of illegal firearms in Australia; if so, what are the estimated numbers. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. The method of licensing differs throughout the States. Most States register individuals or shooters as licensed holders of firearms and not firearms themselves. In the ACT the Australian Federal Police (AFP) acting on delegated authority from the Department of Territories do register firearms. They advise that as at 21 March 1986 the total number of firearms registered was 42,304. (2) The information is not available in respect of the States for reasons explained above. In respect to the ACT the statistics for previous years are not readily available. The information is kept on a manual card system and there is no requirement by the Registrar to keep statistics or make returns. It would be an unreasonable diversion of resources to compile the requested information from individual cards. (3) In respect to the figures provided for the ACT in (1) above there were: 1,240 pistols, 29,820 rifles and 11,244 shotguns. (4) The information is not available. (5) No. (Question No. 971) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) What is the determined policy of the Department in relation to de facto relationships. (2) How is this policy implemented in departmental assessment of individual claims for benefits. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) In relation to de facto relationships, the Department of Education implements policy determined by the Government. Specific provisions concerning de facto relationships are included in most of the schemes of educational assistance to individuals administered by the Department of Education, as described in (2) below. With respect to departmental staff there are also provisions in the various Personnel Management Manuals, which are common to all Commonwealth Departments. (2) In two student assistance schemes governed by legislation, namely the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) and the Postgraduate Awards (PGA) scheme, and in the non-legislated Adult Secondary Education Assistance Scheme (ASEAS) there is a common definition of ``spouse'' which includes acceptance of de facto relationships where there is a child of the relationship or two years' cohabitation. Such relationships may enable a recipient of assistance to qualify for certain allowances, namely dependent spouse and fares allowances under TEAS and ASEAS, and dependants, travelling and establishment allowances under the PGA scheme. In addition, under TEAS and ASEAS, the independent rate of allowance is paid where a student is living in a de facto relationship and there is a child of the relationship. In all income tests where a spouse's income is taken into account (including the parental income test for the non-legislated Secondary Allowances Scheme (SAS) and the Assistance for Isolated Children (AIC) Scheme) the term includes a de facto spouse. For the assessment of benefits under the Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme (Abstudy) no distinction is made between married students and those living in de facto relationships, in recognition of differing social patterns within Aboriginal society. The relevant benefits are living and dependants allowances. Students who are 18 years or over or ``married, living in a de facto relationship or widowed, divorced, single, separated but with one or more dependants'' attract a higher rate of living allowance payable. Students also receive a dependants allowance in respect of a dependent spouse or de facto spouse. (Question No. 1036) Senator Haines asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 April 1986: (1) Was Aquaglen Limited (UK) exempt from the provisions of the Foreign Takeovers Act on the grounds that it acted as trustee for Australian interests, and if so, were superannuation funds numbered among those interests. (2) Were any Australian State or Federal Public Servants among the ultimate beneficiaries of Aquaglen Ltd (UK's) holdings of units in the Basilthon Unit Trust during the period 1976-79. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) I refer the honourable senator to my response to a question upon notice asked by the honourable member for La Trobe regarding the activities of Aquaglen Ltd (UK) that appears on page 1456 of Hansard for the House of Representatives of 14 March 1986. I have no further details to the status of Aquaglen or its beneficial ownership additional to those contained in that response. (Question No. 1059) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 May 1986: (1) How many staff will be attached to the following areas of those allocated to implement and administer the fringe benefits tax: (a) The Department of Finance; (b) the Treasury; (c) the Office of the Treasurer; (d) the Office of the Minister for Finance; and (e) the Australian Taxation Office, on a state-by-state basis. (2) What is the name, designation and salary of each staff member in relation to (c) and (d). Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) NIL. Several officers will implement and administer the fringe benefits tax as it affects the Department of Finance as part of their normal duties; (b) NIL; (c) NIL; (d) NIL; and (e) New South Wales... 189 Victoria... 147 Queensland... 107 South Australia... 51 Western Australia... 52 Tasmania... 14 Australian Capital Territory... 30 590 (2) Not applicable. (Question No. 1072) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Was a Major Halata, an officer in the Armed Forces of the Philippines trained in Australia. (2) When did he train and where. (3) Is this the same person who has been accused by the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches as having arrested one, Virgilo Navarro Villegas. (4) Did Major Halata preside over, supervise and witness continuous torture, interrogation, beating and imprisonment of Villegas. (5) Over what period did this activity continue. (6) Has the Australian Government had any other instances brought to it of such behaviour by officers of the armed forces of the Philippines who have trained in Australia. (7) What mechanisms are available to monitor the behaviour of officers from the Philippines who are trained in Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (5) No record has been found of a Major Halata having trained in Australia under the Defence Cooperation Program (DCP). A Captain Mario C. Jalata attended a Foreign Officers Tactical Intelligence Course at the School of Military Intelligence, Canungra 6 September-17 October 1984, preceded by the Australian Cultural Familiarisation Course at the DCP Language School, Laverton 8 August-4 September 1984. The Tactical Intelligence Course concentrates on teaching the correct use of maps and air photographs, security, and the collection, collation, interpretation, and dissemination of information within a unit. We have no evidence of any involvement by Captain Jalata in human rights abuses. It is understood that the officer was killed in action in August 1985. (6) No. (7) As indicated in response to the honourable senator's question on notice of 8 April, it is not for the Australian Government to monitor Filipino servicemen upon return to the Philippines. The overall impact of DCP activities is however carefully considered. The Australian Government notes that a significant proportion of DCP training has been directed towards middle ranking officers, the group within the Armed Forces of the Philippines from which much of the support for the Reform Movement has come. It should also be noted that the Government of President Aquino has taken significant steps in support of its commitment to safeguard human rights. In particular, it has established a Commission on Human Rights (CHR) with a mandate to investigate alleged human rights abuses. (Question No. 1085) Senator Vigor asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) What is the present estimated lifetime of the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. (2) When was the date last revised, and on what grounds. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) See the answer to the House of Representatives Question 2362 provided on 29 November 1985 (p. 4267). (Question No. 1097) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) What measures are in place, or will be considered to protect Australian wheat farmers from a reported prediction by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation that the world's wheat trade will decline in the remainder of 1986 because of a variety of economic circumstances, particularly in view of the crippling anti-Australian trade practices and marketing techniques in which the United States and the European Community are already heavily engaged. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) The Government is particularly concerned about the potential impact on Australian farmers of adverse world wheat trade developments, especially depressed prices and the predatory nature of US and EEC agricultural policies. The Government has been very active in seeking to protect Australian wheat interests. (2) With respect to measures currently in place to protect Australian farmers, the guaranteed minimum price scheme for wheat, introduced in 1979 and continued in the Wheat Marketing Act 1984 for the five year period ending 30 June 1989, provides a mechanism that ensures Australian wheat farmers' returns are not fully affected by sudden unexpected downturns in world prices. (3) Recent Government action on this issue includes the Joint Party delegation lobbying on behalf of Australian wheatgrowers in Washington DC, the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden raising the matter in his recent presentation in ANZUS talks and the meeting of international fair wheat traders in Cairns convened by the Minister for Trade to consider US and EEC trade moves. Future action includes the Australian presentation at the forthcoming Multilateral Trade Negotiations. (Question No. 1113) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: When will the reply to my question, which first appeared on the Notice Paper of 12 February 1986, be forthcoming. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The reply to Question No. 808 appeared in Senate Hansard of 19 August 1986, on page 54. (Question No. 1116) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: When will the reply to my question, which first appeared on the Notice Paper of 12 February 1986, be forthcoming. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Question No. 824 published on 19 August 1986 (Hansard, pages 54/55). (Question No. 1123) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) Has Victoria consistently had an unemployment rate below the national average in recent years; if so, for how many months consecutively has the Victorian unemployment rate been below the national average, and for how many consecutive months has Victoria had the lowest unemployment rate of all the states. (2) What are the reasons for the unemployment rate in Victoria being below the national average. (3) Could the national jobless rate be lowered to the Victorian level without the national economy suffering adverse side effects. (4) What barriers, if any, exist to prevent the jobless rate in other states from falling to the Victorian level. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Victoria has had an unemployment rate consistently below the national average in recent years. The Victorian unemployment rate has been below the national average for 58 consecutive months (from October 1981 to July 1986) and Victoria has had the lowest unemployment rate of all the States for 38 consecutive months (from June 1983 to July 1986). (2) A combination of factors contribute to Victoria having an unemployment rate below the national average. Industries have been affected to varying degrees by poor economic growth over the decade to 1983 and differences in industry composition of the State economies are reflected in differing State unemployment rates. Victoria's unemployment rate in the decade to August 1983 has for the most part been below the national average and the peak unemployment rate for Victoria was 9.7 per cent in May 1983, 0.6 percentage points below the Australian unemployment rate of 10.3 per cent at that time. Full-time employment growth in Victoria in the last three years of economic recovery has been slightly higher than the national average, at 8.4 per cent in the three years to July 1986 compared with 8.0 per cent for Australia. Differences between States in their labour force participation rates may also give rise to different unemployment rates, although this has not contributed significantly to the lower unemployment rate experienced in Victoria. Long-term unemployment is also not at present as great a problem in Victoria as it is in Australia as a whole, due to the impact of the 1982-83 recession on long-term unemployment being greater for other States than for Victoria. In June 1986 the proportion of the unemployed within the 12 months or longer duration category was 24.1 per cent for Victoria and 29.2 per cent for Australia. To the extent that long term unemployed may be less attractive to employers due to loss of job skills and work orientation, the lesser problem of long-term unemployment in Victoria may have enabled its overall unemployment rate to be reduced both faster and more easily. (3) and (4) Various `barriers' exist to a common unemployment rate across States. One of the most important relates to the varying employment performance of respective States and the direct influence this has on unemployment outcomes, abstracting from labour force participation changes. Given the pattern of growth of aggregate demand, the composition of industry within States influences the extent to which employment can benefit from economic growth. Mismatches between jobseekers and available job vacancies may be another reason why the unemployment rate in certain States may be higher than the Victorian level. Through the Relocation Assistance Scheme (RAS) which aims to reduce geographical mismatching of jobs and jobseekers, and Government support for skills training (eg. the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training, the Adult Training Program, and the Community Training Program) the Government is directly attempting to improve the matching of jobseekers and job vacancies. The uneven distribution of very long term unemployed across the States may present a `barrier' to reducing unemployment rates in some States to the Victorian level. For example, those unemployed for two years or more represent 0.9 per cent of the labour force in Victoria compared with 1.7 per cent in New South Wales. This may prevent the New South Wales unemployment rate being lowered to the Victorian level. (Question No. 1133) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 3 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 the 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 Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department of Aviation has no record of any grants or funds being paid to a trade union body or related organisation in the financial years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. QANTAS, Australian Airlines and Independent Airfares Committee all report that they have not made available any grants or funds to any trade union or related organisation in the financial years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. (Question No. 1140) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 June 1986: (1) What was the total of all costs involved in preparing, printing and distributing the first and second editions of the `Priority One' newsletter. (2) How many copies of Edition 1 were printed- (a) what was the cost of printing; (b) what was the cost of the artwork; (c) was any amount outside of the initial quotation; (d) who received these copies; (e) what was the cost of postage; and (f) how many copies were sent by Express Courier and to whom. (3) How many copies of Edition 2 were printed- (a) what was the cost of printing; (b) what was the cost of the artwork; (c) was any amount outside of the initial quotation; (d) who received these copies; (e) what was the cost of postage; and (f) how many copies were sent by Express Courier and to whom. (4) How many editions of the newsletter `Priority One' are planned and when will these be available. Senator Button —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The cost in preparing, printing and distributing the first and second editions of the `Priority One' newsletter was $147,475.85. (2) There were 1.5 million copies of Edition 1 printed- (a) the printing costs were $44,165; (b) the cost of the artwork was $7,554 which includes both creative and finished art head hours; (c) there was no amount outside the quotation; (d) copies were made available through offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, offices of members of Parliament, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Education, cinemas, youth organisations and shopping centres; (e) the cost of postage was $31,088; (f) approximately 1.3 million copies were sent by Express Courier to the organisations identified in (d). (3) There were 0.5 million copies of Edition 2 printed- (a) the printing costs were $19,880; (b) the cost of the artwork was $6,500; (c) there was no amount outside the quotation; (d) copies were made available through offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, offices of members of Parliament, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Education, youth organisations and Post Offices; (e) the cost of postage was $11,832; (f) 0.5 million copies were sent by Express Courier to the organisations identified in (d). (4) No decision has yet been taken on whether there will be further editions. (Question No. 1144) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) What was the cause of the fire during the weekend of 31 May 1986, at the Sizewell Nuclear Plant 100 km north-east of London. (2) Did the fire pose any threat to the people of the United Kingdom or elsewhere. (3) How many nuclear accidents involving fires in installations have occurred worldwide in the past 5 years. (4) Where did the accidents happen, and how many fatalities have happened as a result. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am advised that on 31 May 1986 a fire was discovered amongst packing cases in a corridor adjacent to the pile cap supervision room at the Sizewell nuclear power plant. This room overlooks the pile cap (which is the concrete floor on top of the reactor core) and refuelling operations. The fire brigade was called and the fire was put out. The station and the reactors continued to operate normally and were unaffected by this event. (2) I understand that nobody was hurt. No radioactive material was involved. An internal inquiry is taking place and a report is not yet available. (3) and (4) I am advised that the only nuclear accident involving a fire which has occurred in the past five years was in April 1986 at the USSR Chernobyl nuclear power plant. In common with all other industrial plants, a number of fires have occurred at nuclear installations arising from normal industrial activity, for example oil and electrical fires. Definitive details of these fires are not readily available, however no fatalities have been reported. According to the latest advice received from the USSR authorities, the Chernobyl accident has resulted in 31 fatalities. (Question No. 1155) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: Has the Government given any further consideration to recommendations 20 and 27 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking which raise the question of an operational role for the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government does not currently support an operational role for the Bureau which would involve field work to verify or assess intelligence. The Commonwealth supports the concept of co-operation and liaison through the participation of AFP, Customs and State/Territory Police in the exchange of intelligence through the ABCI. The Management Committee of the ABCI, which is comprised of all the Commissioners of Police in Australia, has decided that the Bureau should not at this time have an operational role other than in support of police operations. There is provision in the Intergovernmental Agreement which established the ABCI for Commissioners of Police to provide operational field units within their respective organisations to respond to tasks and priorities required by the ABCI. This approach, coupled with the constant interchange of information between the ABCI and the Bureaux of Criminal Intelligence of the Australian Police Forces, provides a satisfactory and practical solution. (Question No. 1156) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Has the Australian Federal Police held consultations with the State Police Forces on methods of ensuring greater access by the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence to State requested Interpol information, following the Government's response to recommendations 22 to 24 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking concerning the passing of information by police forces to the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence; if so, what methods have been implemented to ensure greater access. (2) What further consideration has been given by the Government to Mr Justice Stewart's recommendation that the Australian Federal Police and State Police Forces should surrender to the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence all information held on organised crime to avoid the duplication of effort and resources that presently exists and to achieve a truly national system of criminal intelligence. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. State police have endorsed ABCI access to Interpol's computerised Name Index Facility which should ensure access to information passed to and from the States. Interpol references (name and date of birth only) are being progressively input onto a data base which is accessible by the ABCI. (2) The Australian Federal Police (AFP) shares intelligence with the ABCI including provision of extensive access to computer holdings. In view of the AFP's operational responsibilities to investigate organised crime, as directed by Government, the AFP has a continuing need to maintain a criminal intelligence function with respect to organised crime. (Question No. 1157) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Does the Government still support recommendation 28 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking which calls for the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence Officers to visit overseas posts for direct briefings with Australian Narcotics and Police Liaison Officers. (2) If the Government does support the above, what action has been taken to ensure that Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence Officers receive such briefings. (3) Have Intelligence Officers been stationed on a permanent basis in Singapore and Bangkok, as recommended by Mr Justice Stewart. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Government supports recommendations 28 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking in so far as the ABCI receives assistance through the network of overseas liaison officers maintained by the AFP. The ABCI does request assistance through the AFP overseas liaison network and provides briefing to liaison officers prior to their taking up duty overseas. (3) No. ABCI receives information through the AFP liaison officers stationed in Singapore and Bangkok. (Question No. 1158) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) What consideration has the Australian Police Ministers' Council given to the Government's response to recommendation 32 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking concerning the establishment of an Inspectorate of Australian Police Forces along similar lines to H.M. Chief Inspector of Constabulary in the United Kingdom. (2) Does the Government support the establishment of such an Inspectorate. (3) Would the Inspectorate be given a specific charter to root out corruption as recommended by Mr Justice Stewart. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Australian Police Ministers' Council has considered recommendation 32 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and it was the view of Council that the U.K. Inspectorate of Constabulary model was not applicable to Australian police forces-its primary role being performance auditing relating to central funding allocations by the Home Office. It is understood that while Inspectors of Constabulary have occasionally undertaken specific investigations relating to alleged police corruption this is not a continuing role. (3) Not applicable. See answer to parts (1) and (2). (Question No. 1159) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) What consideration has the Australian Police Ministers' Council given to recommendations 33 and 34 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking concerning proposals for the investigation of police corruption. (2) Does the Australian Police Minister's Council support the sentiments expressed by Mr Justice Stewart concerning the investigation of complaints of police corruption; if so, will the Government implement fully recommendations 33 and 34 of Mr Justice Stewart's Report. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Australian Police Ministers' Council has considered recommendations 33 and 34 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and resolved in May 1984 to note that the matters raised in Stewart recommendations 33 and 34 are matters for resolution within each jurisdiction. (2) See answer to part (1). All jurisdictions have existing procedures and mechanisms for dealing with the investigation of complaints and allegations. Arrangements can and have been made for outside assistance in investigating complaints and allegations against police within individual jurisdictions. In the Commonwealth sphere experience with the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act indicates that it is working well. (Question No. 1167) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Have the ``Inherited extradition treaties listed by Mr Justice Stewart now been reviewed and a program of bilateral treaties negotiated'' following the Government's response to recommendation 56 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking; if so, with which countries have bilateral treaties been negotiated. (2) What are the grounds of, and the procedures for, extradition with those countries. (3) Has any effort been made by the Government to keep procedures with the various countries as uniform as possible. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Extradition Task Force established by the Attorney-General in February 1985 has conducted a complete review of Australia's extradition arrangements. A program for the negotiation of modern extradition treaties to replace the inherited treaties and to put in place extradition arrangements where they presently do not exist is well advanced. Since February 1985 modern extradition treaties have been signed with Ireland, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway. Protocols up-dating existing modern treaties have been signed with Sweden, Finland and Austria. The respective processes for bringing these treaties and protocols into force in Australia and each of those countries is now in progress. By 30 June 1986, negotiations had resulted in the initialling by officials of treaty texts with France, Greece, Indonesia, Luxembourg, Monaco, Morocco, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Switzerland. Negotiations are in progress with Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Philippines, South Korea, Tunisia, Turkey, United States of America. Negotiations are due to commence shortly with Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombo, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay. Expressions of interest in negotiating modern extradition treaties are being sought from other countries. In addition, since February 1985 the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 has been applied, pursuant to Sub-section 10 (4) of that Act, to Japan, Denmark, South Africa, and the Federal Republic of Germany, thus enabling Australia to make requests for extradition of, and consider requests for extradition by, those countries. (2) (a) Under the treaties now being negotiated, extradition may be granted of a person accused or convicted of any offence punishable under the laws of both countries by a term of at least 12 months imprisonment, or by a more severe penalty. In the case of convicted persons, a minimum term of imprisonment, usually in excess of three months, must remain to be served. Extradition may be refused on a number of internationally accepted grounds, for example, that the offence of which the person is accused or convicted is an offence of a political character. (b) The procedure for extradition under the treaties negotiated by Australia since February 1985 is simpler than the procedure under the older treaties. The modern procedure for extradition involves the making of a request in writing, accompanied by documents in support of the request. Section 17 of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966, the provisions of which are reflected in the modern treaties, specifies the minimum documentation which must be produced to a Magistrate to enable the making of an order. For example, the documentation comprises, in the case of an accused person, a copy of the warrant for the arrest of the person issued in the requesting country, a statement of the offences for which extradition is requested, a statement of the acts or omissions alleged against the person, particulars of identification, and a statement of the relevant provisions of law. The documentation must be authenticated in accordance with the treaty. (3) A model treaty which was settled by the Extradition Task Force has been used as the basis for the negotiations which have been completed or are in progress. As a result, a substantial degree of uniformity has been attained. The procedures envisaged by the model treaty reflect the requirements specified in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. (Question No. 1169) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: What action has the Government taken in respect to recommendation 65 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking concerning the negotiation of treaties and less formal agreements with neighbouring countries under which each party would assist the others' law enforcement agencies to obtain access to documentary records required in the course of an investigation and located in that country. (2) With which countries has Australia negotiated treaties and/or agreements of the type outlined above. (3) Are these treaties and agreements proving effective in investigatory work undertaken by law enforcement agencies. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In response to the Government's escalation of the attack on organised crime, my Department is at an advanced stage of developing draft Commonwealth legislation for international mutual assistance in criminal matters which I hope to introduce in the 1986 Budget session. A model bilateral mutual assistance treaty has also been developed. This model treaty will be used as a basis for negotiations with non-Commonwealth countries. A scheme for mutual assistance between Commonwealth countries (including provisions relating to the forfeiture of proceeds of criminal activity) was also considered at the Commonwealth Law Ministers meeting in Harare, Zimbabwe in July-August 1986 and has been adopted by Law Ministers. Mutual assistance treaties or arrangements will provide for reciprocal provision of assistance in the prevention, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. The informal assistance already provided by Interpol in the investigation of offences will not be affected. (2) and (3) As the legislation required to underpin a scheme of mutual assistance in criminal matters has not been passed by the Parliament, no formal treaties or agreements have been entered into. However, preliminary discussions have indicated that a number of foreign states are prepared to enter into negotiations, and preliminary negotiations have already been conducted with the United States and Switzerland. (Question No. 1173) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Has the Australian Police Ministers' Council been asked by the Government to investigate and report upon the implementation of a national system to protect prosecution witnesses against reprisals from organized criminals, as suggested in recommendation 88 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. (2) What consideration has the Australian Police Ministers' Council given to the above matter. (3) Has the Australian Police Ministers' Council reported on the possible implementation of such a system. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The Australian Police Ministers' Council considered the matter at its 10th meeting on 31 May 1985. (3) The APMC noted the advice of the State and Territory Police Commissioners that satisfactory bilateral arrangements exist between Australian police forces for the protection of witnesses. It was decided not to establish a national system to protect prosecution witnesses at this stage, however, the matter would be kept under review. (Question No. 1188) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 10 June 1986: When will the reply to Senate Question 594 which first appeared on the Notice Paper of 9 October 1985, be forthcoming. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The answer to question 594 appeared in Hansard dated 19 August 1986 on page 47. (Question No. 1200) Senator Morris asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 11 June 1986: What consideration has been given by the Ministerial Council established for the Murray-Darling Basin, to the role of the tourist industry in commissioning the environmental study of the Murray-Darling River system. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Environmental Resources Study recently initiated by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council will examine the sensitive environmental resources in the Basin in relation to future management practices. It will take into account the various factors influencing the long-term integrity of the Basin's environmental resources, including tourist and recreational activities. The study will be carried out by officers of the four Governments drawing on expertise within their agencies. This will include consultation with government and non-goverment experts and organisations, as appropriate. The study will determine what actions should be taken to safeguard the different environmental resources while taking into account the community's significant interest in tourism and recreational activities. (Question No. 1213) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 13 June 1986: How many scientists and engineers are employed by the department and its instrumentalities. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The following numbers of staff are employed specifically in science or engineering grades. Scientists Engineers Department Antarctic Division ... 28 10 Bureau of Meteorology ... 283 36 Central Office (includes Australian Government Analytical Laboratories) ... 135 10 Statutory Authorities Anglo-Australian Telescope Board ... 8 5 Australian Institute of Marine Science ... 25 1 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization ... 2,911 36 National Standards Commission ... 4 5 Total ... 3,394 103 Although the Patents, Trade Marks and Designs Office employs a number of tertiary qualified staff they do not occupy specific scientific or engineering positions. This is true also of other areas of the Department and instrumentalities where staff with science or engineering backgrounds are employed in clerical/administrative designations. (Question No. 1223) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 13 June 1986: (1) What is the present period taken for the registration of a patent. (2) What is the average cost of the registration of a patent. (3) What is the average cost of patent registration in each of the countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (4) What is the average period taken for the registration of patents in each country of the OECD. (5) What is the cost of the registration of a trademark. (6) What is the period taken for registration of a trademark. (7) What is the average cost of the registration of a trademark in each of the countries of the OECD. (8) What is the average period taken for the registration of a trademark in each of the countries of the OECD. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (8) As indicated in my answer to a question without notice asked by the honourable senator (Hansard, 13 June 1986, page 4058), it is not possible to provide an accurate and meaningful comparison between various countries of the cost and period taken to obtain patent and trade mark registration because of the differences which exist between countries in the procedures followed and the number and types of fees levied at different stages between application and registration of a patent or trade mark. The industrial property offices of each of the OECD countries have, however, been asked to provide information on the cost and period taken for the registration of patents and trade marks in their country on the following assumptions: (i) in relation to (3), that the average cost would be computed in relation to ``average'' patent applications that follow a ``normal'' path through the system and would include only the costs of filing, examination and search, grant and maintenance fees up to grant, or equivalent fees which may apply in the country concerned; (ii) in relation to (7), costs would be the normal costs up to registration for an ``average'' trade mark application which follows a ``normal'' path; (iii) an ``average'' patent application would have an average number of pages and claims; (iv) an ``average'' trade mark application would be what normally applies in the country concerned for registration of a mark in relation to goods or services of a single class; (v) a ``normal'' path would exclude such matters as applicant-requested delays, oppositions, interferences, etc; and (vi) in relation to (4) and (8), the ``average'' period would be that which applies to applications that are currently being granted or registered and should be in respect of ``average'' applications which have followed a ``normal'' path. While many industrial property offices have noted points which illustrate the difficulties in achieving valid comparisons, the following, often approximate, data understood to refer to official fees only, has been provided by 18 August 1986. Country Patents Av cost Av period Trade Marks Av cost Av period ($A)(a) (months) ($A)(a) (months) Australia ... 695 50 260 35 Austria ... 350 24 300 4 Belgium ... 1,384 (b)...18 183 8 Canada ... 1,149 35 402 22 Denmark ... 1,926 72 146 8-10 Finland ... 443 51 276 17 Federal Republic of Germany ... 468 34 (c)...259 10 Greece ... 26 24 Ireland ... 716 60-72 277 8 Netherlands ... 2006 42 204 8 New Zealand ... 151 42 132 28 Norway ... 815 48 265 24 Portugal ... 52 24 41 12(d) Spain ... 116 (e)...12 64 10 Sweden ... 432 42 130 9 Switzerland ... 642 30 250 3 Turkey ... 1747 18 35 1-4 United Kingdom ... 440 42 315 24 United States of America ... 1508 22 278 13 Notes: (a) While the dates on which advice of costs in the relevant national currencies varies, $A equivalents have been calculated on the exchange rate as at 11 August, 1986. (b) Expected cost from 1 January 1967. (c) After request for examination. (d) Minimum period. (e) Excluding examination for novelty. The complexities in interpreting this information may warrant the honourable senator discussing the matter with the Commissioner of Patents and Registrar of Trade Marks, Mr P. A. Smith. (Question No. 1237) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: Could an incident, as reported in the press, relating to one of the States where a killer, in escaping from lawful custody, suffered an ankle injury and received `no fault' compensation of some real consequence, occur under Commonwealth law. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There is no Commonwealth law of the above kind and, accordingly, the answer is, no. (Question No. 1243) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: What action has the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization taken to remedy deficiencies in its data processing management systems, which were highlighted in the report of the Auditor-General in 1985. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In June 1984 the Organization launched a project to develop a new state of the art Payroll/Personnel system using a fourth generation language (NATURAL) and database management (ADABAS) approach. It was necessary that this project be completed and implemented in early 1985 to enable the existing payroll system, operating on the CSIRONET Cyber 76, to be replaced prior to the decommissioning of the Cyber 76. As operating costs of the Cyber 76 were in the order of $1m per annum, CSIRONET did not wish to retain this computer simply for administrative work once the scientific computing was transferred to its replacements, the Cyber 205 and Cyber 840. At that time the scheduled decommissioning of the Cyber 76 was targeted for May 1985 (although it was not ultimately decommissioned until November 1985). The Organization therefore faced a very stringent deadline for the introduction of a modern Payroll/Personnel system if it was to avoid the cost penalties of retaining the Cyber 76 in operation. Following an extensive review of its administrative requirements it had been decided to replace all existing administrative computing systems, which were outdated batch systems and difficult to maintain, with new on-line interactive systems using ADABAS/NATURAL. The development and implementation of the Payroll/Personnel system, being the first of these new systems, involved not only the development of the necessary program software, but also the establishment and operation of interactive databases with all their security complexities, the setting up of a network of administrative terminals for on-line operations and the training of both computer systems staff and users. The project was undertaken with emphasis on economy and against a stringent timetable. With hindsight, its introduction might be seen as having been premature, as all the necessary security features had not been put in place at the time of its introduction. While this resulted in audit criticism at that time, considerable progress has continued to be made since this audit review. Although refinements and developments in these areas will be an ongoing process to meet potential weaknesses that may be identified in the use of these new technologies, the concerted effort made by CSIRO to rectify problems which were identified after introducing the new system are believed to have remedied the deficiencies highlighted in the report of the Auditor-General. (Question No. 1274) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since 5 March 1986. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Nil. (2) Nil. Explanatory Note: Action is in hand to introduce a new Senior Executive Service structure involving the abolition of four positions (one Level 3 and three Level 1) and creation of two new positions each at Level 4. (Question No. 1285) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since 5 March 1986. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Nil. (2) Not applicable. (Question No. 1293) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since 5 March 1986. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) None. (2) Not applicable. (Question No. 1294) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since 5 March 1986. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Within the Department of Veterans' Affairs only one position in the Senior Executive Service has been reclassified since 5 March 1986. (2) On 27 March 1986 a position of Senior Executive Service Level 3, $58,398, was reclassified to SES Level 2, $53,632. (Question No. 1343) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) Should there be an indication in the guide to the assessment of rates of veterans' pensions, which was tabled on 2 June 1986, that it has been approved by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, as required by section 29, sub-sections (3) and (7), of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. (2) Has the Minister's approval been formally given; if it has, why is there no mention of this in the guide to the assessment of rates of veterans' pensions. (3) If there is a document which records the Minister's approval, why was this not incorporated in the guide to the assessment of rates of veterans' pensions when it was printed. (4) Has the guide been made available upon application, despite the fact that there is no indication that it has received the Minister's approval. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Although the Veterans' Entitlements Acts 1986 stipulates the guide must be approved by the Minister, there is no requirement in that legislation that an indication of such approval should appear in the printed document. (2) Yes. The document could not have been tabled unless ministerial approval had been given. (3) Refer to answer to (1) above. (4) Yes. Senator Walsh —On 16 October 1985 (Hansard, pages 1319-20), Senator Mason asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Will the Government consider introducing a provisional taxation system for this type of mineral exporter (referring to the Swiss-based Aluminium company Aluswisse) so that considerable funds would be held by the Government while any taxation appeals took place. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: It is not entirely clear from the question what the honourable Senator meant when he referred to a provisional taxation system. I have presumed, however, that he had in mind a system whereby a withholding of tax is made at the time a payment is made. The Government recognises that deduction of tax at source can be a most cost-effective means of collecting tax. However, it is impractical to apply such a system in many instances, particularly where the relevant payments are for the sale of goods. The rate of withholding necessary from gross income to approximate the final tax liability on taxable income would be virtually impossible to calculate because of the many and varied circumstances of each individual taxpayer. Also, where income is received from a foreign source the withholding measures may not be able to be enforced. Under existing law, a company that is unsuccessful in an appeal against a tax assessment, and which has not paid the tax which on appeal it is found liable to pay, is obliged to pay penalty tax at the rate of 20 per cent per annum. This tax is not an income tax deduction. Senator Walsh —On 26 November 1985 (Hansard, page 2235) Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: My question to the Minister representing the Treasurer refers to the policy of granting tax exemptions to charitable organisations. Is the Minister aware that charitable organisations in Queensland-I refer specifically to the Queensland Deaf Society (Inc.) as a case in point-may be forced to pay up to $20,000 in new taxes under the new arrangements. What criteria has the Government applied in making exemptions to charitable organisations available to religious bodies but not to non-denominational organisations offering identical services? What response would the Minister make to the suggestion that the services of organisations like the Queensland Deaf Society are provided free to clients in need and that, therefore, any increases to the cost of such services cannot be handed on to the user? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 was amended in the Senate to exempt from fringe benefits tax benefits provided by public benevolent institutions to their employees. The term ``public benevolent institution'' is not defined in that legislation but takes its meaning from common law. Broadly, such an institution is one which is organised for the relief of poverty, suffering, distress or misfortune and which is not conducted for the profit of individuals. The Queensland Deaf Society (Inc.) is recognised as a public benevolent institution and will thus be exempt from the fringe benefits tax. Senator Walsh —On 1 May 1986 (Hansard, page 2184) Senator Lewis asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Trade unions offer a wide range of benefits to their members including denticare, home loans and holiday homes. Do these benefits arise out of employment? If so, will they be subject to fringe benefits tax and who will pay the tax? If not, does the Government realise that benefits paid through an association allied to employment would provide a tax loophole? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Fringe benefits tax is a tax payable by employers on the value of certain benefits provided, either directly or indirectly, by the employer to an employee in respect of the employee's employment. The benefits referred to by the honourable senator arise in consequence of membership of the union and do not arise in consequence of the member's employment. Such benefits are therefore not subject to the tax. If, however, a union provided benefits to an official employed by the union in respect of the official's employment, the union would be liable to pay fringe benefits tax on those benefits in the same way as any other employer. The Government does not accept that the situation as described represents a loophole in the fringe benefits tax law. The tax is not intended to apply to benefits that are not related to an employee's employment. In particular, the tax is not intended to apply where a person who is a member of a club, co-operative or other association that is not linked with an employer is able, by reason of his or her membership, to purchase goods or services at a lower price than if those goods or services were purchased by a non-member. Senator Walsh —On 5 May 1986 (Hansard, page 2325) Senator Townley asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to a pamphlet published by the Australian Sports Aid Foundation which is headed `Australia Bound for Edinburgh '86'. Inside the flyleaf it has a message from Mr Hawke imploring us all to support financially the Australian Commonwealth Games team which goes to Edinburgh this year in July. The pamphlet includes the statement: The Australian Government has incorporated the Australian Sports Aid Foundation with the intention of making your donation to the team tax deductible. Does this definitely mean that the money paid to the Australian Sports Aid Foundation is tax deductible? Secondly, is any other money paid to support the Australian Edinburgh team also tax deductible? In a supplementary question, the honourable senator asked whether the Government is allowing people, through one of its own corporations, to make something tax deductible that would not otherwise be tax deductible. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Taxation Laws Amendment Act 1986 amended the gift provisions of the income tax law to authorise deductions for gifts of $2 or more, made on or after 18 February 1986, to the Australian Sports Aid Foundation. The Government established the Foundation to raise funds for the development of Australian sport generally. Funds raised by the Foundation may be directed to those sports or sporting bodies considered by the Foundation to be most in need of assistance. It is not a requirement of the law that the bodies that receive funds from the Foundation qualify, in their own right, as organisations gifts to which are tax deductible. Moneys paid in support of the Australian Commonwealth Games team may, in certain circumstances, be deductible under the existing general deduction provision of the income tax law. For expenditure to be so deductible, there must be a positive nexus between the incurring of the expenditure (the gift) and the production of assessable income or the carrying on of a business for that purpose. Where a taxpayer carrying on a business is able to demonstrate that a gift in support of the Australian Commonwealth Games team has been made to enhance the public image of that business, the expenditure would have the character of a business expense and be tax deductible. Senator Walsh —On 30 May 1986 (Hansard, page 3111) Senator Watson asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: (1) Why is the Commissioner of Taxation issuing more than one assessment in respect of one or the same items of income? (2) Does not this practice result in one assessment being inconsistent with the other and also in double taxation? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) & (2) The Commissioner of Taxation has confirmed that there are occasions when more than one assessment could possibly issue in respect of the same income. This could occur where the law is unclear and a decision of a court is necessary to decide the proper basis of assessment. The courts have recognised that in appropriate cases this multiple assessment action is open. In such cases, the Commissioner takes steps to avoid double taxation of the income by seeking payment only in respect of one of the relevant assessments until the matter is clarified. Once the correct basis of assessment is decided, any other assessment of the same income is withdrawn. Senator Walsh —On 30 May 1986 (Hansard, page 3110), Senator Messner asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: (1) Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to an article in today's Age that indicated that the Commissioner of Taxation is intending to raise 10,000 assessments against taxpayers involved with so-called bottom of the harbour tax avoidance schemes. (2) Can the Minister confirm that report. (3) If so, can the Minister advise on what basis such assessments will be raised. (4) Are these assessments likely to be based on the same grounds as was the Hawke Labor Government's unreasonable legislation which has already been twice rejected by the Senate. The Treasurer has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The Commissioner of Taxation has confirmed that approximately 10,000 notices of assessment will issue to vendor-shareholders in respect of the sale of their shares in companies stripped of pre-tax profits. (3) and (4) The assessments are being issued in reliance on section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Section 260 operates to make void, as against the Commissioner, a contract, agreement or arrangement made or entered into on or before 27 May 1981 to the extent to which it has or purports to have the effect of altering the incidence of income tax or of relieving any person from liability to pay any income tax. The effect of section 260, in the context of pre-tax company profit stripping, is seen to be that the purported sale of the company shares is void as against the Commissioner so that the amount received by a shareholder that represents profits of the company of one kind or another is assessable as a dividend. Notices of assessment and adjustment sheets will reflect the inclusion of a dividend in assessable income. Senator Walsh —On 2 June 1986 (Hansard, page 3137) Senator Messner asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice regarding the concerns expressed by the Prime Minister recently at Canowindra about the impact of the fringe benefits tax on the rural community, and in particular as it affects accommodation provided on farms. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: I am aware of the issues put to the Prime Minister at Canowindra and the Government sees no need to amend the fringe benefits tax as it applies to farmers. Many of the farmers' concerns were based on a misunderstanding of the intended application of the tax. Certain lobby groups have sought to misrepresent and inflate the complexity and financial impact of the tax upon rural-based employers. The suggestion that farmers will have to pay fringe benefits tax on accommodation provided to children who work on the farm is just one of the more extreme suggestions put forward by these groups. I have also pointed out that the family homes of farmers will not be subject to the tax except in those circumstances where farmers claim tax deductions in relation to that home on the grounds that the farmer is in some sense an employee rather than the owner of the property. In fact, the concessions applying through the valuation principles built into the legislation would leave farmers with only a modest fringe benefits tax liability in most cases. Further, accommodation and power provided to employees in remote areas will attract a 40 per cent discount in recognition of the difficulties associated with remote area employment. It should be remembered that the fringe benefits tax is intended to improve the fairness of our tax system. Without the fringe benefits tax those employees who can contract with their employers to receive a substantial part of their remuneration in the form of fringe benefits bear a proportionately smaller share of the tax burden than other employees. Senator Walsh —On 4 June 1986 (Hansard, page 3348) Senator Zakharov asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice about a program of the Scotch College Foundation under which friends of the College make interest-free loans to the Foundation. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commissioner of Taxation has informed me that he is aware of the arrangements to which the honour- able senator referred. Generally speaking, there is nothing in the income tax law to operate against the making of interest-free loans. Parents make interest-free loans to children. Club members make them to clubs. Associated companies make them amongst themselves. The interest-free loans in the present case do not attract any income tax consequences to the members. (Question No. 1184) Senator Collard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 June 1986: (1) Has only one Australian University a school of International Relations and are there few senior professors or highly regarded experts in this field in Australia. (2) Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs have any plans to suggest that universities improve their performance and capacity in this area. (3) Does the relative absence of graduates specialising in International Relations explain deficiencies in strategic and defence thinking in such departments as Foreign Affairs and Defence. (4) Have any middle or senior level officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs attended the Graduate School of Foreign Affairs officials from allied countries run by the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Boston. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Australian National University has the only School of International Relations in Australia. However, many universities teach international relations either as a formal course or as parts of other courses, particularly in political science, history and law. Additionally, important work in aspects of international relations is carried out by the Centre for Strategic and Defence Studies and the Peace Research Centre, both located at the Australian National University. The latter centre has been established with the support of funds provided directly by the Government. Valuable contributions have also been made to the study of Australia's relations with Asia by centres such as the Australia-Japan Research Centre at the Australian National University, the Centre for the Study of Australian Asian Relations, which is located at the Griffith University, and the Asian Studies Centre, University of Sydney. Over a number of years Australian Universities have produced and attracted many specialists in the field of international relations, a number of whom enjoy the very highest international reputations. (2) No. (3) No. This implies a judgment about the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Defence with which I disagree. (4) One officer of my Department has attended the Fletcher School. Over the years officers of my Department have attended a range of Australian and overseas academic and other institutions to work on aspects of international relations, including strategic and defence issues, both in courses of formal instruction and to participate in seminars, write and to carry out research. Subject to the constraints of staffing and other resources I would hope to continue to develop that most valuable practice. (Question No. 1199) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 June 1986: (1) What United Nations Covenants have been ratified by Australia. (2) What was the date of each such ratification. (3) Which other countries have ratified each treaty. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are only two United Nations Covenants to which Australia is a party, namely the Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There are, however, a number of other multilateral treaties, sometimes termed ``conventions'', for which the Secretary-General of the United Nations performs depositary functions or which have been drawn up by specialised agencies of the United Nations, and to which Australia has become a party by ratification or by some other step provided for in the treaty concerned, such as definitive signature, accession or acceptance. These treaties are set out in the attached list. (2) The dates on which Australia became a party to the multilateral treaties by ratification or otherwise are entered on the right of the list. This information is also available in the Australian Treaty List (published in the Australian Treaty Series 1971 No. 1) and subsequent cumulative supplements and annual lists of treaty actions published in the treaty series. (3) The list of states party to multilateral treaties is voluminous and in some cases, for example where a reservation has been made, requires interpretation. The information may be found in United Nations publication `Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General' and in publications of the specialised agencies. The Treaties and Sea Law Branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs can provide information on particular treaties. TREATIES FOR WHICH THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS PERFORMS DEPOSITARY FUNCTIONS TO WHICH AUSTRALIA IS A PARTY Title Australian Ratification (or accession (a), definitive signature(s), or acceptance (A)) 1. Charter of the United Nations. Signed at San Francisco on 26 June 1945. Entry into force: 24 October 1945. 1 November 1945 2. Amendments to the Charter of the United Nations Amendments to Articles 23, 27 and 61. Adopted on 17 December 1963. Entry into force: 31 August 1965. 9 June 1965 Amendments to Article 109. Adopted on 20 December 1965. Entry into force: 12 June 1968. 27 December 1966 Amendments to Article 61. Adopted on 20 December 1971. Entry into force: 24 September 1973. 16 November 1972 3. Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Approved by the General Assembly on the United Nations on 13 February 1946. Entry into force on deposit of instrument of accession. 2 March 1949 4. Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies. Approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 21 November 1947. Entry into force on deposit of instrument of accession. 20 November 1962 (a) 5. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Done at Vienna on 18 April 1961. Entry into force: 24 April 1964. 26 January 1968 6. Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. Done at Vienna on 18 April 1961. Entry into force: 24 April 1964. 26 January 1968 (a) 7. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963. Entry into force: 19 March 1967. 12 February 1973 8. Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations-concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963. Entry into force: 19 March 1967. 12 February 1973 (a) 9. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including diplomatic agents. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1973. Entry into force: 20 February 1977. 20 June 1977 10. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948. Entry into force: 12 January 1951. 8 July 1949 11. International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. Open for signature at New York on 7 March 1966. Entry into force: 4 January 1969. 30 September 1975 12. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966. Entry into force: 3 January 1976. 10 December 1975 13. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966. Entry into force: 23 March 1976. 13 August 1980 14. Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 18 December 1979. Entry into force: 3 September 1981. 28 July 1983 15. Constitution of the International Refugee Organisation. Opened for signature at Flushing Meadow, New York, on 15 December 1946. Entry into force: 20 August 1948. 13 May 1947 16. Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Done at Geneva on 28 July 1951. Entry into force: 22 April 1954. 22 January 1954 (a) 17. Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. Done at New York on 28 September 1954. Entry into force: 6 June 1960. 13 December 1973 (a) 18. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Done at New York on 30 August 1961. Entry into force: 13 December 1975. 13 December 1973 (a) 19. Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. Done at New York on 31 January 1967. Entry into force: 4 October 1967. 13 December 1973 20. Protocol amending the Agreements, Conventions and Protocols on Narcotic Drugs, concluded at The Hague on 23 January 1912, at Geneva on 11 February 1925 and 19 February 1925 and 13 July 1931, at Bangkok on 27 November 1931 and at Geneva on 26 June 1936. Signed at Lake Success, New York, on 11 December 1946. Entry into force: 11 December 1946. 29 August 1947 21. International Opium Convention. The Hague, 23 January 1912. Entry into force: 31 December 1914. 10 January 1920 22. International Opium Convention, with Protocol. Signed at Geneva on 19 February 1925 and amended by the Protocol signed at Lake Success, New York on 11 December 1946. Entry into force: 3 February 1948. 28 August 1947 (a) 23. International Opium Convention, Geneva, February 19th, 1925. In force since September 25th, 1928. 17 February 1926 Protocol, Geneva, February 19th, 1925. In force since September 25th, 1928. 17 February 1926 24. Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs with Protocol of Signature, signed at Geneva on 13 July 1931 and amended by the Protocol signed at Lake Success, New York, on 11 December 1946. Entry into force: 21 November 1947. 28 August 1947 (A) 25. Convention for limiting the Manufacture and regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs Geneva, July 13 1931. In force since 9 July 1933. 24 January 1934 (a) Protocol of signature. Geneva, July 13 1931. 24 January 1934 (a) 26. Protocol bringing under International Control Drugs Outside the Scope of the Convention of 13 July 1931 for limiting the manufacture and regulating the distribution of Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the Protocol signed at Lake Success, New York, on 11 December 1946. Signed at Paris on 19 November 1948. Entry into force: 1 December 1949. 19 November 1948 (s) 27. Protocol for Limiting and Regulating the Cultivation of the Poppy Plant, the Production of International and wholesale Trade in, and Use of Opium. Opened for signature at New York on 23 June 1953. Entry into force: 8 March 1963. 13 January 1955 (a) 28. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. Done at New York on 30 March 1961. Entry into force: 13 December 1964. 1 December 1967 29. Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Concluded at Vienna on 21 February 1971. Entry into force: 16 August 1976. 19 May 1982 30. Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. Concluded at Geneva on 25 March 1972. Entry into force: 8 August 1975. 22 November 1972 31. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended by the Protocol of 25 March 1972 amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. Done at New York on 8 August 1975. Entry into force: 8 August 1975. 22 November 1972 32. Protocol to amend the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children, concluded at Geneva on 30 September 1921, and the Convention for the suppression of the Traffic in Women of Full Age, concluded at Geneva on 11 October 1933. Signed at Lake Success, New York on 12 November 1947. Entry into force: 12 November 1947. 13 November 1947 (s) 33. Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children, concluded at Geneva on 30 September 1921 and amended by the Protocol signed at Lake Success, New York, on 12 November 1947. Entry into force: 24 April 1950. 13 November 1947 (s) 34. International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children. Geneva, September 30th, 1921. Came into force for each party on the date of deposit of its ratification or act of accession. 28 June 1922 35. Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women of Full Age, concluded at Geneva on 11 October 1933 and amended by the Protocol signed at Lake Success, New York, on 12 November 1947. Entry into force: 24 April 1950. 13 November 1947 (s) 36. Protocol amending the International Agreement for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic, signed at Paris on 18 May 1904, and the International Conventioin for the Suppression of White Slave Traffic, signed at Paris on 4 May 1910. Signed at Lake Success, New York, on 4 May 1949. Entry into force: 4 May 1949. 8 December 1949 (s) 37. International Agreement for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic, signed at Paris on 18 May 1904 and amended by the Protocol signed at Lake Success, New York on 4 May 1949. Entry into force: 21 June 1951. 8 December 1949 (s) 38. International Agreement for the Suppression of the ``White Slave Traffic''. Signed at Paris on 18 May 1904. In force since 18 July 1905. 1906 (a) 39. International Convention for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic, signed at Paris on 4 May 1910 and amended by the Protocol signed at Lake Success, New York, on 4 May 1949. Entry into force: 14 August 1951. 8 December 1949 (s) 40. International Convention for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic. Signed at Paris on 4 May 1910. Entry into force: 8 February 1913. 18 August 1914 (a) 41. Protocol to amend the Convention for the Suppression of the Circulation of, and Traffic in, Obscene Publications, concluded at Geneva on 12 September 1923. Signed at Lake Success, New York, on 12 November 1947. Entry into force: 12 November 1947. 13 November 1947 (s) 42. Convention for the Suppression of the circulation of, and Traffic in, Obscene Publications, concluded at Geneva on 12 September 1923 and amended by the Protocol signed at Lake Success, New York, on 12 November 1947. Entry into force: 2 February 1950. 13 November 1947 43. International Convention for the Suppression of the Circulation of and Traffic in Obscene Publications. Geneva, September 12 1923. In force since August 7 1924. 29 June 1935 (a) 44. Protocol amending the Agreement for the Suppression of the Circulation of Obscene Publications, signed at Paris on 4 May 1910. Signed at Lake Success, New York, on 4 May 1949. Entry into force: 4 May 1949. 8 December 1949 (s) 45. Agreement for the Suppression of the Circulation of Obscene Publications, signed at Paris on 4 May 1910 and amended by the Protocol signed at Lake Success, New York, on 4 May 1949. Entry into force: 1 March 1950. 8 December 1949 (s) 46. Agreement for the Suppression of the Circulation of Obscene Publications. Signed at Paris on 4 May 1910. Entry into force: 15 September 1911. 12 April 1912 (a) 47. Constitution of the World Health Organisation. Signed at New York on 22 July 1946. Entry into force: 7 April 1948. 2 February 1948 48. Amendments to the Constitution of the World Health Organization. Amendments to articles 24 and 25. Adopted on 28 May 1959. Entry into force: 25 October 1960. 12 August 1959 Amendments to articles 24 and 25. Adopted on 23 May 1967. Entry into force: 21 May 1975. 14 October 1968 (a) Amendments to articles 34 and 55. Adopted on 22 May 1973. Entry into force: 3 February 1977. 11 March 1975 (a) Amendments to articles 24 and 25. Adopted on 17 May 1976. Entry into force: 20 January 1984. 30 March 1977 (a) Amendments to article 74. Adopted on 18 May 1978. Not yet in force. 29 September 1981 (a) 49. Protocol concerning the office international d'hygiene publique. Signed at New York on 22 July 1946. Entry into force: 20 October 1947. 8 May 1947 50. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, with Annexes and Schedules of Tariffs Concessions. Signed at Geneva on 30 October 1947. Entry into force: 1 January 1948. 8 May 1947 51. Convention on Transit Trade of Land-Locked States. Done at New York on 8 July 1965. Entry into force: 9 June 1967. 2 May 1972 (a) 52. Agreement establishing the Asian Development Bank. Done at Manila on 4 December 1965. Entry into force: 22 August 1966. 19 September 1966 53. Agreement Establishing the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Concluded at Rome on 13 June 1976. Entry into force: 30 November 1977. 21 October 1977 54. Constitution of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation. Concluded at Vienna on 8 April 1979. Entered into force: 21 June 1985. 20 November 1981 55. International Convention to Facilitate the Importation of Commercial Samples and Advertising Material. Done at Geneva on 7 November 1952. Entry into force: 20 November 1955. 6 January 1956 (a) 56. Convention concerning Customs Facilities for Touring. Done at New York on 4 June 1954. Entry into force: 11 September 1957. 6 January 1967 (a) 57. Additional Protocol to the Convention concerning Customs Facilities for Touring, relating to the Importation of Tourist Publicity Documents and Material. Done at New York on 4 June 1954. Entry into force: 28 June 1956. 6 January 1967 (a) 58. Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Vehicles. Done at New York on 4 June 1954. Entry into force: 15 December 1957. 6 January 1967 (a) 59. Customs Convention on Containers, with annexes and Protocol of Signature. Done at Geneva on 18 May 1956. Entry into force: 4 August 1949. 6 January 1967 (a) 60. European Convention on Customs Treatment of Pallets used in International Transport. Done at Geneva on 9 December 1960. Entry into force: 12 June 1962. 1 October 1969 (a) 61. Customs Convention on Containers 1972. Concluded at Geneva on 2 December 1972. Entry into force: 6 December 1975. 10 November 1975 (a) 62. Convention on Road Traffic, with annexes. Signed at Geneva on 19 September 1949. Entry into force: 26 March 1952. 7 December 1954 (a) 63. Convention on the Taxation of Road Vehicles for Private Use in International Traffic and Protocol of Signature. Done at Geneva on 18 May 1956. Entry into force 18 August 1959. 3 May 1961 (a) 64. Convention on the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization. Signed at Geneva on 6 March 1948. Entry into force: 17 March 1958. 13 February 1952 65. Amendments to the Convention on the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization Amendments to articles 17 and 18. Adopted in resolution A69 (Es. 11) of 15 September 1964. Entry into force: 6 October 1967. 6 January 1965 (a) Amendment to article 28 Adopted in resolution A70 (iv) of 28 September 1965. Entry into force: 3 November 1968. 20 June 1966 (a) Amendment to the title and substantive provisions of the Convention. Adopted by resolutions A.358 (ix) of 14 November 1975 and A.371 (x) of 9 November 1977 (rectification of resolution A.358 (ix)). Entry into force: 22 May 1982. 28 May 1980 (a) Amendments to the Convention relating to the institutionalization of the Committee on Technical Co-operation in the Convention. Adopted in resolution A.400 (x) of 17 November 1977. Entry into force: 10 November 1984. 29 May 1980 (a) Amendment to articles 17, 18, 20 and 51. Adopted in resolution A.450 (xi) of 15 November 1979. Entry into force: 10 November 1984. 10 December 1980 (a) 66. Protocol amending the International Convention relating to Economic Statistics, signed at Geneva on 14 December 1928. Signed at Paris on 9 December 1948. Entry into force: 9 December 1948. 9 December 1948 (s) 67. International Convention relating to Economic Statistics. Signed at Geneva on 14 December 1928 and amended by the Protocol signed at Paris on 9 December 1948. Entry into force: 9 October 1950. 9 December 1948 (s) 68. International Convention relating to Economic Statistics. Geneva, December 14, 1928. In force since December 14, 1930. 13 April 1932 (a) Protocol, Geneva, December 14, 1928. In force since December 14, 1930. 13 April 1932 (a) 69. Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms against unauthorized Duplication of their Phonograms. Concluded at Geneva on 29 Octover 1971. Entry into force: 18 April 1973. 12 March 1973 (a) 70. Convention on the Political Rights of Women. Opened for signature at New York on 31 March 1953. Entry into force: 7 July 1954. 10 December 1974 (a) 71. Convention on the Nationality of Married Women. Done at New York on 20 February 1957. Entry into force: 11 August 1958. 14 March 1961 (a) 72. Protocol amending the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926. Done at the Headquarters of the United Nations, New York, on 7 December 1953. Entry into force: 7 December 1953. 9 December 1953 (s) 73. Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926 and amended by the Protocol done at the Headquarters of the United Nations, New York, on 7 December 1953. Entry into force: 7 July 1955. 9 December 1953 (s) 74. Slavery Convention. Geneva, September 25, 1926. In force since March 9 1927. 18 June 1927 75. Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery. Done at Geneva on 7 September 1956. Entry into force: 30 April 1957. 6 June 1958 76. International Coffee Agreements, 1962. Signed at New York on 28 September 1962. Entry into force: 1 July 1963. 11 November 1963 77. International Coffee Agreement, 1968. Open for signature at New York from 18 to 31 March 1968. Entry into force: 30 December 1968 (definitively). 26 September 1968 78. Extension with modifications of the International Coffee Agreement, 1968. Approved in resolution No. 264 of 14 April 1973. Effective date: 1 October 1973. 28 September 1973 (s) 79. International Coffee Agreement, 1968. Open for signature at New York from 18 to 31 March 1968, as extended with modifications by the International Coffee Council in resolution No. 264 of 14 April 1973. Effective date: 1 October 1973. 28 September 1973 (s) 80. Protocol for the Continuation in Force of the International Coffee Agreement, 1968, as extended. Concluded at London on 26 September 1974. Entry into force: 1 October 1975. 26 March 1975 (s) 81. International Sugar Agreement, 1968. Open for signature at New York from 3 to 24 December 1968. Entry into force: 17 June 1969 (definitively). 23 May 1969 82. International Cocoa Agreement, 1972. Concluded at Geneva on 21 October 1972. Entry into force: 30 June 1973 (provisionally). 19 December 1973 84. Extension of the International Sugar Agreement, 1973. Approved in resolution No. 1 of 30 September 1975. Effective date: 1 January 1976. 16 June 1976 85. International Sugar Agreement, 1973. Concluded at Geneva on 13 October 1973, as extended in resolution No. 1 of 30 September 1975. Effective date: 1 January 1976. 16 June 1976 (a) 86. Extension of the International Sugar Agreement, 1973. Approved in resolution No. 2 of 18 June 1976. Effective date: 1 January 1977. 28 December 1976 87. International Sugar Agreement, 1973. Concluded at Geneva on 13 October 1973, as extended in resolution No. 2 of 18 June 1976. Effective date: 1 January 1977. 28 December 1976 (a) 88. Extension of the International Sugar Agreement, 1973. Approved in resolution No. 3 of 31 August 1977. Did not take effect. 15 December 1977 89. International Tin Agreement 1975. Concluded at Geneva on 21 June 1975. Entry into force: 14 June 1977. 8 November 1976 90. Sixth International Tin Agreement. Concluded at Geneva on 26 June 1981. Entry into force: 1 July 1982 (provisionally). 4 February 1982 (provisionally) 91. International Cocoa Agreement, 1975. Concluded at Geneva on 20 October 1975. Entry into force: 7 November 1978. 29 September 1976 92. International Coffee Agreement, 1976. Concluded at London on 3 December 1975. Entry into force: 1 August 1977. 30 September 1976 93. International Sugar Agreement 1977. Concluded at Geneva on 7 October 1977. Entry into force: 2 January 1980. 27 June 1978 94. International Natural Rubber Agreement, 1979. Concluded at Geneva on 6 October 1979. Entry into force: 15 April 1982. 24 February 1982 95. Extension of the International Coffee Agreement. Approved by the International Coffee Council on 25 September 1981. Entry into force: 1 October 1892. 3 January 1983 (Definitive) 96. International Coffee Agreement, 1983. Concluded at London on 16 September 1982. Entry into force: 11 September 1985. 30 September 1983 (a) 97. International Agreement on Jute and Jute Products, 1982. Concluded at Geneva on 10 October 1982. Entry into force: 9 January 1984 (Provisionally) 12 April 1984 (a) 98. International Sugar Agreement 1984. Concluded at Geneva on 5 July 1984. Entry into force: 4 April 1985. 31 December 1984 99. Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance. Done at New York on 20 June 1956. Entry into force: 25 May 1957. 12 February 1985 (a) 100. Agreement establishing the Common Fund for Commodities. Concluded at Geneva on 27 June 1980. Not yet in force. 9 October 1981 101. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. Done at Geneva on 29 April 1958. Entry into force: 10 September 1964. 14 May 1963 102. Convention on the High Seas. Done at Geneva on 29 April 1958. Entry into force: 30 September 1962. 14 May 1963 103. Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. Done at Geneva on 29 April 1958. Entry into force: 20 March 1966. 14 May 1963 104. Convention on the Continental Shelf. Done at Geneva on 29 April 1958. Entry into force: 10 June 1964 14 May 1963 105. Optional Protocol of Signature concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. Done at Geneva on 29 April 1958. Entry into force: 30 September 1962. 14 May 1963 (s) 106. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Done at New York on 10 June 1958. Entry into force: 7 June 1959. 26 March 1975 (a) 107. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969. Entry into force: 27 January 1980. 13 June 1974 (a) 108. Constitution of the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity. Concluded at Bangkok on 27 March 1976. Entry into force: 25 February 1979. 26 July 1977 Amendment to Article 11, para 2 (a) of the Constitution of the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity, 1976. Concluded at Bangkok on 13 November 1981. Entry into force: 2 January 1985. 16 August 1983 (A) 109. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile use of Environmental Modification Techniques. Approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1976. Entry into force: 5 October 1978. 7 September 1984 110. Special Protocol concerning Statelessness. The Hague, April 12, 1930. Not yet in force. 8 July 1935 (a) 111. Protocol relating to a certain case of statelessness. The Hague, April 12, 1930. In force since July 1, 1937. 8 July 1935 (a) 112. Convention on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws. The Hague, April 12, 1930. In force since July 1, 1937. 10 November 1937 113. Protocol relating to Military Obligations in Certain Cases of Double Nationality. The Hague, April 12, 1930. In force since May 25, 1937. 8 July 1935 (a) 114. Convention on the Stamp Laws in connection with Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, and Protocol. Geneva, June 7, 1930. In force since January 1, 1934. 3 September 1939 (a) 115. Convention on Stamp Laws in connection with Cheques, and Protocol. Geneva, March 19, 1931. In force since November 29, 1931. 3 September 1938 (a) 116. International Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency, and Protocol. Geneva, April 20, 1929. In force since February 22, 1931. 5 January 1982 (a) 117. Declaration recognising the Right to a Flag of States having no Sea-coast. Barcelona, April 20, 1921. In force since 20 April 1921. 31 October 1922 (a) 118. Convention and Statute on the International Regime of Maritime Ports, and Protocol of Signature. Geneva, December 9, 1923. In force since July 26, 1926. 29 June 1925 (a) 119. International Convention relating to the Simplification of Customs Formalities, and Protocol. Geneva, November 3, 1923. In force since November 27, 1924. 13 March 1925 120. General Act of Arbitration (Pacific Settlement of International Disputes). Geneva, September 26, 1928. In force since August 16, 1929 21 May 1931 121. Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects, with annexed protocol. Geneva, 10 October 1980. Entry into force: 2 December 1983. 29 September 1983 122. United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea. Montego Bay, 10 December 1982. Not yet in force. 123. Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 12 November 1974. Entry into force: 15 September 1976. 11 March 1986 (a) 124. Wheat Trade Convention, 1986. London, 14 March 1986. Not yet in force. 27 June 1986 (a) TREATIES CONCLUDED BY SPECIALISED AGENCIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO WHICH AUSTRALIA IS A PARTY Title Australian Ratification (or definitive signature(s), acceptance (A), or accession (a)) 1. Constitution of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. Done at Quebec on 16 October 1945. Entry into force: 16 October 1945. 16 October 1945 2. Agreement for the establishment of the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council. Done at Baguio on 26 February 1948. Entry into force: 9 November 1948. 10 March 1949 3. Constitution of the International Rice Commission. Done at Washington on 13 March 1948. Entry into force: 4 January 1949. 1 July 1953 (A) 4. International Plant Protection Convention. Done at Rome on 6 December 1951. Entry into force: 27 August 1952. 27 August 1952 5. Plant Protection Agreement for South-East Asia and Pacific region. Done at Rome on 27 February 1956. Entry into force: 2 July 1956. 27 February 1956 (s) 6. Agreement for the Establishment of a Regional Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia, the Far East and the South West Pacific. Done at Rome on 22 June 1973. Entry into force: 29 December 1975. 7 June 1976 (A) 7. Articles of Agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Done at Washington on 27 December 1945. Entry into force: 27 December 1945. 5 August 1947 (A) 8. Convention on International Civil Aviation. Done at Chicago on 7 December 1944. Entry into force: 4 April 1947. 1 March 1947. 9. Interim Agreement on Civil Aviation. Done at Chicago on 7 December 1944. Entry into force: 6 June 1945. 19 May 1945 (A) 10. International Air Services Transit Agreement. Done at Chicago 7 December 1944. Entry into force: 28 August 1945. 28 August 1945 11. Protocol ammending Article 45 of the International Civil Aviation Convention of 7 December 1944. Done at Montreal on 14 June 1954. Entry into force: 16 May 1958. 23 August 1957 12. Protocol amending Articles 48 (a), 49 (e) and 61 of the International Civil Aviation Convention of 7 December 1944. Done at Montreal on 14 June 1954. Entry into force: 12 December 1956. 22 April 1955 13. Protocol amending Article 50 (a) of the International Civil Aviation Convention of 7 December 1944. Done at Montreal on 21 June 1961. Entry into force: 17 July 1962. 19 January 1962 14. Convention Supplementary to the Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Carriage by Air, performed by a person other than the Contracting Carrier. Done at Guadalajara on 18 September 1961. Entry into force: 1 May 1964. 1 November 1962 15. Protocol amending Article 48 (a) of the International Civil Aviation Convention of 7 December 1944. Done at Rome on 15 September 1962. Entry into force: 11 September 1975. 1 August 1963 16. Convention on Offences and certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft. Done at Tokyo on 14 September 1963. Entry into force: 4 December 1969. 22 June 1970 (a) 17. Protocol on the Authentic Trilingual Text of the Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944. Done at Buenos Aires on 24 September 1968. Entry into force: 24 October 1968. 12 February 1968 (s) 18. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft. Done at the Hague on 16 December 1970. Entry into force: 14 October 1971. 9 November 1972 19. Protocol relating to an Agreement to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Done at New York on 12 March 1971. Entry into force: 16 January 1973. 15 December 1971 20. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. Done at Montreal on 23 September 1971. Entry into force: 26 January 1973. 12 July 1973 21. Protocol relating to an amendment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Done at Vienna on 7 July 1971. Entry into force: 19 December 1974. 28 February 1978 22. Protocol relating to an amendment to Article 50 (a) of the Convention on Civil Aviation. Done at Montreal on 16 December 1974. Entry into force: 15 February 1980. 18 April 1978 23. International Labour Organisation. Convention (No. 2) concerning unemployment. Done at Washington on 29 October 1919. Entry into force: 14 July 1921. 15 June 1972 24. Convention (No. 7) fixing the Minimum Age for Admission of Children to Employment at Sea. Done at Genoa on 9 July 1920. Entry into force: 27 September 1921. 28 June 1935 25. Convention (No. 8) concerning unemployment indemnity in cases of Loss or Floundering of the Ship. Done at Genoa on 9 July 1920. Entry into force: 16 March 1923. 28 June 1935 26. Convention (No. 9) for establishing Facilities for Finding Employment for Seamen. Done at Genoa on 10 July 1920. Entry into force: 23 November 1921. 3 August 1925 27. Convention (No. 10) concerning the Age of Admission of Children to Employment in Agriculture. Done at Geneva on 16 November 1921. Entry into force: 31 August 1923. 24 December 1957 28. Convention (No. 11) the Rights of Association and Combination of Agricultural Workers. Done at Geneva on 12 November 1921. Entry into force: 11 May 1923. 24 December 1957 29. Convention (No. 12) concerning Workmen's Compensation in Agriculture. Done at Geneva on 12 November 1921. Entry into force: 26 February 1923. 7 June 1960 30. Convention (No. 15) fixing the Minimum Age for the Admission of Young Persons to employment as Trimmers and Stokers. Done at Geneva on 11 November 1921. Entry into force: 12 May 1924. 28 June 1935 31. Convention (No. 16) concerning the Compulsory Medical Examination of Children and Young Persons employed at Sea. Done at Geneva on 11 November 1921. Entry into force: 20 November 1922. 28 June 1935 32. Convention (No. 18) concerning Workmen's Compensation for Occupational Diseases. Done at Geneva on 10 June 1925. Entry into force: 1 June 1927. 22 April 1959 33. Convention (No. 19) concerning Equality of Treatment for National and Foreign Workers as regards Workmen's Compensation for Accidents. Done at Geneva on 5 June 1925. Entry into force: 8 September 1926. 12 June 1959 34. Convention (No. 21) concerning the Simplification of the Inspection of Emigrants on Board Ship. Done at Geneva on 5 June 1921. Entry into force: 29 December 1927. 18 April 1931 35. Convention (No. 22) concerning Seamen's Articles of Agreement. Done at Geneva on 24 June 1926. Entry into force: 4 April 1928. 1 April 1935 36. Convention (No. 26) concerning the Creation of Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery. Done at Geneva on 16 June 1928. Entry into force: 14 June 1930. 9 March 1931 37. Convention (No. 27) concerning the Marking of the Weight on Heavy Packages transported by Vessels. Done at Geneva on 21 June 1929. Entry into force: 9 March 1932. 9 March 1931 38. Convention (No. 29) concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour Done at Geneva on 28 June 1930. Entry into force: 1 May 1932. 2 January 1932 39. Convention (No. 42) concerning Workmen's Compensation for Occupational Diseases (Revised) 1934. Done at Geneva on 21 June 1934. Entry into force: 17 June 1936. 29 April 1959 40. Convention (No. 45) concerning the Employment of Women on Underground Work in Mines of all kinds. Done at Geneva on 21 June 1935. Entry into force: 30 May 1937. 7 October 1953 41. Convention (No. 47) concerning Forty Hour Week. Done at Geneva on 22 June 1935. Entry into force: 23 June 1957. 22 October 1970 42. Convention (No. 57) concerning Hours of Work and Manning (Sea). Done at Geneva on 24 October 1936. Not yet in force. 24 September 1938 43. Convention (No. 63) concernig Statistics of wages and Hours of Work in certain Industries and in Agriculture. Done at Geneva on 20 June 1938. Entry into force: 21 June 1940. 5 September 1939 44. Convention (No. 76) concerning Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea). Done at Seattle on 29 June 1946. Not yet in force. 25 January 1949 45. Convention (No. 80) for the partial revision of Conventions adopted at the First 28 Sessions of the General Conference of the International Labour Organization. Done at Montreal on 9 October 1946. Entry into force: 28 May 1947. 25 January 1949 46. Convention (No. 81) concerning Labour Inspection in Industry and Commerce. Done at Geneva on 11 July 1947. Entry into force: 7 April 1950. 24 June 1975 47. Convention (No. 83) concerning the Application of International Labour Standards to Non-Metropolitan Territories. Done at Geneva on 11 July 1947. Entry into force: 15 June 1974. 15 June 1973 48. Convention (No. 85) concerning labour Inspectorates (Non-metropolitan Territories). Done at Geneva on 11 July 1947. Entry into force: 26 July 1955. 30 September 1954 49. Convention (No. 86) concerning the Maximum Length of Contracts of Employment of Indigenous Workers. Done at Geneva on 11 July 1947. Entry into force: 13 February 1953. 15 June 1973 50. Convention (No. 87) concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to organise. Done at San Francisco on 9 July 1948. Entry into force: 4 July 1950. 28 February 1973 51. Convention (No. 88) concerning the organisation of the Employment Service. Done at San Francisco on 9 July 1948. Entry into force: 10 August 1950. 24 December 1949 52. Convention (No. 93) concerning Wages, Hours of Work on Board Ship and Manning (revised). Done at Geneva on 18 June 1949. Not yet in force. 3 March 1954 53. Convention (No. 98) concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to Bargain Collectively. Done at Geneva on 1 July 1949. Entry into force: 18 July 1951. 28 February 1973 54. Convention (No. 99) concerning Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery in Agriculture. Done at Geneva on 28 June 1951. Entry into force: 23 August 1953. 19 June 1969 55. Convention (No. 100) concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value. Done at Geneva on 29 June 1951. Entry into force: 23 May 1953. 10 December 1974 56. Convention (No. 105) concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour. Done at Geneva on 25 June 1957. Entry into force: 17 January 1959. 7 June 1960 57. Convention (No. 109) concerning Wages, Hours of Work on board Ship and Manning, as revised 1958. Done at Geneva on 14 May 1958. Not yet in force. 15 June 1972 58. Convention (No. 111) concerning Discrimination in respect of Employment and Education. Done at Geneva on 25 June 1958. Entry into force: 15 June 1960. 15 June 1973 59. Convention (No. 112) concerning the Minimum Age for Admission to Employment as Fisherman. Done at Geneva on 19 June 1959. Entry into force: 7 November 1961. 15 June 1971 60. Final Articles Revision Convention (No. 116) (1961) of the International Labour Organisation. Done at Geneva on 26 June 1961. Entry into force: 5 February 1962. 29 October 1963 61. Convention (No. 122) concerning Employment (Policy). Done at Geneva on 9 July 1964. Entry into force: 15 July 1966. 12 November 1969 62. Convention (No. 123) concerning the Minimum Age for Admission to Employment Underground in Mines. Done at Geneva on 22 June 1965. Entry into force: 10 November 1967. 12 December 1971 63. Convention (No. 131) concerning Minimum Wage Fixing with Special Reference to Developing Countries. Done at Geneva on 22 June 1970. Entry into force: 29 April 1972. 15 June 1973 64. Convention (No. 137) concerning the Social Repercussions of New Methods of Cargo Handling in Docks. Done at Geneva on 25 June 1973. Entry into force: 24 July 1975. 25 June 1974 65. Convention (No. 142) concerning Vocational Training in the Development of Human Resources. Done at Geneva on 23 June 1975. Entry into force: 19 July 1977. 10 September 1985 66. Convention (No. 144) concerning Tripartite consultations to Promote the Implementation of International Labour Standards. Done at Geneva on 21 June 1976. Entry into force: 16 May 1978. 11 June 1979 67. Convention (No. 150) concerning Labour Administration, Role, Function and Organisation. Done at Geneva on 26 June 1978. Entry into force: 11 October 1980. 10 September 1985 68. Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund. Done at Washington on 27 December 1945. Entry into force: 27 December 1945. 5 August 1947 (a) 69. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, and Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. Done at London on 10 June 1948. Entry into force: 19 November 1952. 6 October 1959 (a) 70. International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil. Done at London on 12 May 1954. Entry into force: 26 July 1958. 29 August 1962 (a) 71. International Convention relating to the Limitation of the Liability of owners of sea-going ships and Protocol of signature. Done at London on 10 October 1957. Entry into force: 31 May 1968. 30 July 1980 72. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. Done at London on 17 June 1960. Entry into force: 26 May 1965. 20 December 1967 (a) 73. International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. Done at London on 17 June 1960. Entry into force: 26 May 1965. 13 January 1967 (a) 74. Amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil 1954. Done at London on 11 April 1962. Entry into force: 18 May 1967 (with the exception of the Amendment to Article XIV which entered into force on 28 June 1967). (See Art. XVII (4)) 75. International Convention on Load Lines. Done at London on 15 April 1966. Entry into force: 21 July 1968. 29 July 1968 (a) 76. International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969. Done at London on 23 June 1969. Entry into force: 18 July 1982. 21 May 1982 (a) 77. Amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil; 1954, and its Annexes. Done at London on 21 October 1969. Entry into force: 20 January 1978. 7 November 1973 (a) 78. International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969. Done at Brussels on 29 November 1969. Entry into force: 6 May 1975. 7 November 1983 79. International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. Done at Brussels on 29 November 1969. Entry into force: 19 June 1975. 7 November 1983 80. Amendments adopted on 12 October 1971 to the International Convention on Load Lines. Done at London on 12 October 1971. Not yet in force. 10 November 1980 (a) 81. Amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954 concerning the Protection of the Great Barrier Reef. (Great Barrier Reef Amendments). Done at London on 12 October 1971. Not yet in force. 13 November 1981 (a) 82. Amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954 concerning Tank arrangements and Limitation of Tank size. (Tank Amendments). Done at London on 15 October 1971. Not yet in force. 13 November 1981 (a) 83. Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing of Collisions at Sea, 1972. Done at London on 20 October 1972. Entry into force: 15 July 1977. 29 February 1980 (a) 84. International Convention for Safe Containers. Done at Geneva on 2 December 1972. Entry into force: 6 September 1977. 22 February 1980 (a) 85. Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution Substances other than Oil, 1973. Done at London on 2 November 1973. Entry into force: 30 March 1983. 7 November 1983 (a) 86. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974. Done at London on 1 November 1974. Entry into force: 25 May 1980. 17 August 1983 (a) 87. Amendments adopted on 12 November 1975 to the International Convention on Load Lines. Done at London on 12 November 1975. Not yet in force. 10 November 1980 (a) 88. Convention and Operating Agreement on the International Maritime Satellite Organisation (INMARSAT). Done at London on 3 September 1976. Entry into force: 16 July 1979. 16 March 1979 89. Protocol to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. Done at London on 19 November 1976. Entry into force: 8 April 1981. 7 November 1983 (a) 90. Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974. Done at London on 17 February 1978. Entry into force: 1 May 1981. 17 August 1983 (a) 91. International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. Done at London on 7 July 1978. Entry into force: 28 April 1984. 7 November 1983 92. International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979. Done at Hamburg on 27 April 1979. Entry into force: 22 June 1985. 7 November 1983(a) 93. Amendments to the International Convention on Load Lines. Done at London on 15 November 1979. Not yet in force. 10 November 1980(a) 94. International Telecommunications Convention, 1947. Done at Atlantic City on 2 October 1947. Entered into force: 1 January 1949. 7 January 1949 95. International Telecommunications Convention, 1952. Done at Buenos Aires on 22 December 1952. Entry into force: 1 January 1954. 22 March 1954 96. International Telecommunications Convention, Final Protocol, Additional Protocol and Radio Regulations, 1959. Done at Geneva on 21 December 1959. Entry into force: 1 January 1961. 1 February 1962 97. International Telecommunications Convention and Optional Additional Protocol, 1965. Done at Montreaux on 12 November 1965. Entry into force: 1 January 1967. 25 January 1967 98. International Telecommunications Convention with Additional Protocols and Optional Protocols on Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, 1973. Done at Malaga-Torremolinos on 25 October 1973. Entry into force: 1 January 1975. 23 June 1975 99. International Telecommunications Convention with Final Protocol, Additional Protocols and Optional Additional Protocols and Optional Additional Protocol, 1982. Done at Nairobi on 6 November 1982. Entry into force: 1 January 1984. 12 January 1984 100. Universal Copyright Convention. Done at Geneva on 6 September 1952. Entry into force: 16 September 1955. 1 February 1969 101. Protocols annexed to the Universal Copyright Convention of 6 September 1952, concerning: 24 July 1969 (a) Application of the Convention to the Works of Stateless Persons and Refugees, (b) Application of the Convention to the Works of certain International Organisations, and (c) The effective Date of Instruments of Ratification or Accession to the Convention. Done at Geneva on 6 September 1952. Entry into force: 24 July 1969. 102. Convention Against Discrimination in Education. Done at Paris on 14 December 1960. Entry into force: 1 March 1967. 29 November 1966(a) 103. Protocol Instituting a Conciliation and Good Offices Commission to be responsible for seeking a settlement of any disputes which may arise between States Parties to the Convention Against Discrimination in Education. Done at Paris on 10 December 1962. Entry into force: 24 October 1968. 22 August 1974 104. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat. Done at Ramsar on 2 February 1971. Entry into force: 21 December 1975 8 May 1974(s) 105. Universal Copyright Convention, as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971 and Protocols 1 and 2. Done at Paris on 24 July 1971. Entry into force: 10 July 1974. 29 November 1977(a) 106. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Done at Paris on 16 November 1972. Entry into force: 17 December 1975. 22 August 1974 107. Convention concerning the International Exchange of Publications. Done at Paris on 3 December 1958. Entry into force: 23 November 1961. 15 June 1984(A) 108. Convention concerning the Exchange of Official Publications and Government Documents between States. Done at Paris on 3 December 1958. Entry into force: 30 May 1961. 15 June 1984(A) 109. Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific. Done at Bangkok on 16 December 1983. Entry into force: 22 October 1985. 23 September 1985(a) 110. Universal Postal Convention, Final Protocol thereto and Regulations, with Provisions regarding Air Correspondence and Final Protocol, 1952. Done at Brussels on 11 July 1952. Entry into force: 1 July 1953 3 May 1954 111. Universal Postal Convention, Final Protocol thereto, Detailed Regulations for implementing the Convention, with Provisions concerning Airmail, and Final Protocol to the Provisions concerning Airmail, 1957. Done at Ottawa on 3 October 1957. Entry into force: 1 April 1959. 29 April 1959 112. Constitution of the Universal Postal Union and Final Protocol; General Regulations for Implementing the Universal Postal Convention; Agreement Concerning Postal Parcels and Final Protocol; and Detailed Regulations of the Agreement concerning Postal Parcels and Final Protocol, 1964. Done at Vienna on 10 July 1964. Entry into force: 1 January 1966. 23 December 1965 113. Additional Protocol to the Constitution of the Universal Postal Union; General Regulations to the Universal Postal Convention; Universal Postal Convention and Final Protocol, Insured Letters and Boxes Agreement, Postal Parcels Agreement and Detailed Regulations, 1969. Done at Tokyo on 14 November 1969. Entry into force: 1 July 1971. 12 November 1971 114. Universal Postal Union. Second Additional Protocol to the Constitution. Postal Parcels Agreement with Final Protocol and Detailed Regulations. Universal Postal Convention with Final Protocol and Detailed Regulations. General Regulations and Final Protocol, 1974. Done at Lausanne on 5 July 1974. Entry into force: 1 January 1976. 25 January 1977 115. Universal Postal Union. Final Act of the XVIIIth Congress. General Regulations of the Universal Postal Convention and Final Protocol, Detailed Regulations of the Universal Postal Convention and Postal Parcels Agreement and Final Protocol, and Detailed Regulations of the Postal Parcels Agreement. Done at Rio de Janeiro on 26 October 1979. Entry into force: 1 July 1981. 2 November 1981(A) 116. Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organisation. Done at Stockholm on 14 July 1967. Entry into force: 26 April 1970. 10 May 1972(a) 117. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of March 20, 1883, as revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967. Entry into force: 26 April 1970 (administrative provisions) and 19 May 1970 (substantive provisions). 25 August 1972 (Articles 13-30) 27 September 1975 (Articles 1-2) 118. Nice Agreement concerning the International classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of Registration of Marks of June 15, 1957 as revised at Geneva on 13 May 1977. Entry into force: 6 February 1979. 4 January 1978 119. Patents Co-operation Treaty with Regulations. Done at Washington on 19 June 1970. Entry into force: 24 January 1978 (with exception of Chapter II which entered into force on 29 March 1978). 31 December 1979(a) 120. Strasbourg Agreement concerning the International Patent Classification. Done at Strasbourg on 24 March 1971. Entry into force: 7 October 1975. 7 November 1974(a) 121. Bonn Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 9 September 1889, as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971. Entry into force: 10 October 1974. 28 November 1977(a) (Question No. 1271) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since March 5, 1986. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Nil. (2) Not applicable. (Question No. 1275) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since March 5, 1986. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) Nil. (2) Not applicable. (Question No. 1284) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since March 5, 1986. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Nil. (2) Not applicable. (Question No. 1291) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What reclassification of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since March 5, 1986. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) None. (2) Not applicable. (Question Nos 1297-1324) Senator Michael Baume asked all Ministers, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: Has the Minister's department, statutory body or authority under the Minister's control, participated in the preparation, attendance or running of Ministerial Council Meetings since 5 March 1983, if so- (a) which Ministerial Council Meetings have been held; (b) what was the duration of each meeting; (c) what was the name and classification of person(s) involved; (d) where were these meetings held; (e) who was in attendance; (f) what was the purpose of the meeting; (g) what was the cost of air or other fares to get to the locale; (h) what transport costs were incurred at the locale; (i) what accommodation costs were incurred; (j) what other costs were incurred; (k) what was the total cost incurred by the Commonwealth for participation at each of these meetings; and (l) were all costs met by the Commonwealth, and if not, who met those costs. Senator Walsh —The honourable senator has asked identical questions of all Ministers, as indicated by the above question numbers. The following answer to the honourable senator's question is provided on behalf of all Ministers, with their concurrence: The information sought is detailed and is not readily available. As has been the practice of previous Governments (for example, answer to Question No. 1134 on 19 August 1979, Hansard, page 51), this Government is not prepared to authorise the use of the considerable resources of time and money that would be involved in assembling the information requested. (Question No. 990) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: What inquiries, reports and reviews, both Government and independent, have been carried out in the last 5 years in respect of the following: (a) Academic Salaries Tribunal; (b) Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence; (c) Australian Electoral Commission; (d) Australian Federal Police; (e) Australian Federal Police Promotion Appeals Board; (f) Australian Police College; (g) Commonwealth Grants Commission; (h) National Crime Authority; (i) National Police Research Unit; (j) Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal; and (k) Remuneration Tribunal. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) Academic Salaries Tribunal-nil. (b) Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence Report on ADP Services to the Special Minister of State. Dr Evan's Report-a consultant 1985-covered portfolio and included ABCI. Feasibility study into Australian Drug Data Base (Phase 1) a report to the APMC carried out by consultants Doll Management Associates Pty Ltd-June 1984 ABCI Management Committee Working Party to Review Operations 1984 Report on Staffing Relating to Enhanced Computer Processing, E. L. Knaus, Assistant Secretary, Financial Management, 10 December 1985. Analysis, Design and Specification of Australian Drug Data Base (Law Enforcement Component) Phase 2 Doll Martin and Associates Pty Ltd-current. Establishment Inspection Report-T. Stokman, Operations Unit November 1984. Establishment Review-D. Waghorn, May 1984. Review of Executive Officer Position-G. Smith, Operations Unit 1986. (c) Australian Electoral Commission A consultancy undertaken by Price Waterhouse to determine whether Electoral office information needs would be met by a centralised, decentralised or distributed ADP system-1982-83. A consultancy undertaken by Price Waterhouse to develop an ADP strategy to meet the needs of the Electoral Office for ADP and management information systems-1983-84. A consultancy undertaken by Computer Sciences of Australia to design and pilot new enrolment systems and develop an implementation strategy-1984-85. (d) Australian Federal Police Joint Management Review of the AFP Report No. 1, February 1984 Report No. 2, April 1984. Report of the Working Party appointed to examine the terms and conditions of service applicable to the AFP, in two volumes-July 1985. Review of AFP Resources-October 1985. A Review of Australia's Peacetime Coastal Surveillance and Protection Arrangements-1984. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure-Inquiry into Civil Coastal Surveillance Co-ordination-``Footprints in the Sand''-1986. (e) Australian Federal Police Promotion Appeals Board (The correct title is now Australian Federal Police Appeals Board) AFP Act 1979 sections 38 and 39-Administrative Review Council Report October 1982. (f) Australian Police College Report of the Working Party on the Relocation of the Australian Police College to the APMC-Chairman Commissioner Robinson (TAS) November 1981. National Police Academy of Australia-Report of Working Party on Curriculum and Related Matters-Chairman Assistant Commissioner E. A. Mudge (VIC)-March 1983. Review of Australian Police College Establishment-Office of Public Service Board-Sydney November 1984. Review of Executive Officer Position- G. Smith, Operations Unit, 1986. (g) Commonwealth Grants Commission-nil. (h) National Crime Authority (NCA) Report by Alan Usher and Associates and Nicholas Clark and Associates Consultants, on the requirements for an ADP system review-June 1985. Report on NCA resource requirements on 18 February 1986 by an interdepartmental review group. The group included the departments of the Special Minister of State and Finance and the NCA. (i) National Police Research Unit Review of Executive Office Position- G. Smith Operations Unit 1986. (j) Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal-nil. (k) Remuneration Tribunal-nil. (Question No. 1108) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce's attention been drawn to an invention by Melbourne truck driver Mr Keiran Donlon as reported in The Australian of 28 May 1986 which is alleged to stop trucks with oversized loads crashing into bridges by warning them electrically of the danger up to a kilometer in advance. (2) Has this device been offered to any Federal Government agency for testing: if so, what has been the result of those tests. (3) If the device proves to be satisfactory, what aid will be forthcoming to Mr Donlon to manufacture and market it in Australia and elsewhere. Senator Button —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) Your question drew my attention to the matter. (2) An associate of Mr Donlon has assured my Department that no approach has yet been made to any Federal agency for support. (3) I understand that the device has been developed to prototype stage so that research and development funding is no longer relevant. An approach for support through the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) would receive normal consideration for support. The inventor could also be referred to a Management and Investment Company or to the Innovation Centre in Melbourne. My Department has contacted an associate of Mr Donlon and suggested he contact the Department's Victorian State Office to discuss the question of Government assistance in detail. (Question No. 1143) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) Has the attention of the Minister for Defence been drawn to a report in The Age of Monday 2 June 1986 quoting recently declassified Pentagon documents revealing that the United States Navy accidently released nuclear weapons in each of the years 1965, 1968, 1969 and 1970. (2) Are any details available on the United States Navy's safety record from 1970 to the present day. (3) Have any of the United States Navy's nuclear accidents happened in Australian or South Pacific waters. (4) What measures are in place to ensure Australia is not vulnerable to nuclear accidents involving visiting United States warships. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for De- fence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The United States Navy has acknowledged that during the period 1965-1985 its nuclear weapons accident reporting system received 630 reports of ``mishaps''. The United States uses a stringent system of reporting all mishaps, however small, including those involving dummy weapons used in training. Of the 630 mishaps, only two could properly be classified as nuclear weapon accidents; both involved the loss of weapons at sea. One was the loss overboard of a nuclear armed A4E fighter in the Western Pacific. The other occurred in 1968 in the North Atlantic. Of the other mishaps, 364 involved dummy weapons used for training purposes. The remaining 264 mishaps were minor, consisting of such events as flat tyres on trailers, and sprinkler systems in magazines being inadvertently activated. None involved leakage of radioactivity. (3) There have been no nuclear weapons accidents in Australian waters nor any, as far as the Australian Government is aware, in South Pacific waters. (4) Nuclear powered warship (NPW) visits to Australia only take place in accordance with the Australian Government's general conditions of entry. In accordance with these conditions, NPWs are permitted to visit only those ports which have been assessed as suitable in terms of strict environmental and safety criteria. Within these ports, the conditions of entry require that NPWs and other shipping be subject to special navigational controls designed to minimize the likelihood of any mishap. Any port to be visited by an NPW must have in place an operating port safety organisation which includes a suitable radiation monitoring program. Details of these port safety plans vary in accordance with local conditions and administrative arrangements. However, they cover arrangements for routine and emergency radiation monitoring and protection, co-ordination of emergency services, evacuation, public information and the removal of the vessel to a remote location. Arrangements for other types of 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. (Question No. 1152) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, on notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Have all the State Bureaus of Criminal Intelligence now established formal and regular liaison with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence following the Government's response to recommendations 14 and 15 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. (2) What pressure has the Commonwealth brought to bear upon the States to establish liaison with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. (3) Have all State Bureaus of Criminal Intelligence been restructured to contain Commonwealth components as recommended by the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry of 1979. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) None required. (3) In 1981 the Australian Police Ministers' Council established the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, taking into account recommendations made by Justice Williams in his report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, 1979. Under the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement which established the Bureau there is a constant exchange of information between the ABCI and the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence of the Australian Police Forces. (Question No. 1296) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: Has the Special Minister of State released, since 4 March 1985, any figures for travelling allowance expenses for Ministers and Opposition Office holders, their staff and the staffs of the Opposition Shadow executive; if not, what has been the reason for this delay and when will these figures be made available. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Travelling allowance figures for Ministers, Opposition Office-holders and their staff for the financial year 1985-86 were released on 5 September 1986.