Thursday, 18 September 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned res-pectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senators Cooney (from 216 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 shows that: We are opposed to the Parliament imposing a Bill of Rights on the people of Australia and we ask that the Senate reject the Bill entirely. Your petitioners humbly pray: That should the Honourable House decide to pass the Bill in amended form it will retain the amendment applying the legislation to trade unions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Alston (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the Churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships, and Australian society generally. Our petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the House ensure that a referendum is held before the Australian Bill of Rights 1985 is permitted to become legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Alston (from 47 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 51 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: (i) the welfare of many employees and their families depends upon a healthy, expanding gold mining industry; (ii) the success of many small businesses in gold mining towns also depends upon the continued profitability of gold mining and prospecting operations; (iii) the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining and prospecting represents a threat to the profitability of these industries and will therefore cause widespread unemployment and depression throughout the whole gold mining industry. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Government to reject any proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining or prospecting thereby ensuring that the spectacular growth of the industry over recent years is continued. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985: (i) does not include many of the rights which are fundamental to Australian society such as the right to own property and the right not to join a trade union. (ii) by virtue of the extremely wide powers which it will give to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, will take away many of our traditional rights such as the right to legal representation, the right to be confronted by one's accuser and the right to be heard in public; and (iii) will therefore change many of the basic aspects of Australian life without people being given the opportunity to decide the Bill's fate at a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate will reject the Bill of Rights in its present or any future form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 43 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas the fringe benefits tax will place a costly and unfair burden on independent schools. The fringe benefits tax will have the most damaging impact upon schools which provide boarding accommodation for children as they are also required to provide accommodation for staff members to live in and supervise the boarders. Independent schools have limited resources and this additional impost will ultimately have to be passed on to parents, many of whom are already heavily committed to the financing of their children's education. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Parliament to recognize that the future of Australia depends upon the education given to its children and to exempt schools from the operation of the fringe benefits tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: that we the citizens of the Illawarra Region condemn the decision to close the Wollongong office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and that we respectfully request that this decision be reversed immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 520 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, being concerned that the Australian Government, in breach of its own stated policies, has lifted the bans on the sale of uranium to France; demand that the Government re-impose the bans on such sales, and further, that the Government ratifies and strengthens the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty to prohibit uranium sales within the region. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sanders (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the 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 94 citizens). Petitions received. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the Federal Government is failing in its responsibility to take effective measures to reduce the level of poverty in Australia, and that the following measures should be taken as a matter of urgency to assist, in particular, families with dependent children to achieve a living standard which enables them to meet the basic necessities of life and to provide opportunities to develop their capacities to a level where they are able to escape the cycle of poverty- (a) lift all pensions and benefits to a level above the poverty line and index; (b) increase child allowances for pensioners and unemployment beneficiaries to $22 per week and index those benefits; (c) increase child allowances for lone parents to $22 per week and index those benefits; (d) increase rental allowances for private renters to $20 per week plus $5 per week extra for each child; (e) increase the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) benefit to 120 per cent of the poverty line; (f) provide paid re-training for unemployed people, particularly for low income earners with dependants; (g) increase the `free' income limit for unemployment benefits to $80 to enable people to go into part-time employment and paid community work and to start their own enterprises; and (h) remove taxation loopholes and negative gearing in company takeovers to gain the tax revenue needed for these reforms. Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to: That an Opposition Senator, when the Senator indicates that he or she is speaking on behalf of the Opposition on any matter under consideration by the Senate, have leave to speak from the place of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964, the Senate appoint Senator Crichton-Browne to be a member of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies on and from 18 September 1986 and that he continue as a member for a period of three years from that date. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to last night's announcement about a meeting to review work practices and the appointment of the Minister himself to head a Cabinet sub-committee to investigate impediments to trade competitiveness. While welcoming the Government's partial acceptance of a number of initiatives advocated by the Opposition, including its limited attack on export controls, I ask the Minister: When will the Government address itself to the equally central issue of rigidity in the wage system which is doing so much to reduce Australia's ability to respond to its current economic difficulties? Have there yet been negotiations with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to renegotiate the accord, which clearly has been made obsolete by the economic crisis? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the last part of the question is that to the best of my knowledge and information there have not yet been detailed negotiations with the ACTU about wage outcomes for calendar year 1987, but that those discussions and negotiations will take place and will be in the hands, of course, basically, of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Treasurer. Insofar as the question refers, first of all, to the rigidity of the wage fixing system, as alleged by Senator Chaney, I just make the point that the centralised wage fixing system has proved itself to be very flexible indeed. The fact of the matter is that, in terms of aggregate wage outcomes, in the three years of this Government there has been a 7 per cent reduction in real wages, as distinct from increases of 11 per cent, 14 per cent and 16 per cent in real wages under the Fraser Government in the last three years in which it was in office. So those figures have to be contrasted if rigidity and flexibility, as Senator Chaney referred to them, are to refer to aggregate wage outcomes. I would again draw attention to the fact that on each occasion on which the Government has announced negotiations with the ACTU on the wage fixing issue, those negotiations have been successful in terms of producing wage restraint in this country, which contrasts very sharply with the practice in other countries such as the United Kingdom where the real increase in wages in the last three years has been 11.5 per cent, as distinct from minus 7 per cent in Australia. So when one talks about rigidities, I think, in economic terms, one is basically concerned about aggregate wage outcomes. There are other issues, of course, involved in the question of rigidity or otherwise in the wage fixing system, but of course the Government is committed to the centralised system, as adjusted from time to time, for the time being. The earlier part of the question was patronising in the extreme in the sense that it suggested that the Government had taken the Liberal Party's advice on a number of issues. We do not need to take the Liberal Party's advice on issues. In respect of just the sorts of matters to which Senator Chaney referred in his question, this Government has delivered, in contrast with the demonstrable failure of the Liberal Party when in government. I take that part of the answer no further than that. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for the early part of his answer, which was sensible, and I will ignore the latter part, which was not. I point out to the Minister that his response to my question about the rigidity of the wage system was, as he admitted, in terms of aggregate wage outcomes. I remind him of the difficulties which arise in the current wage system and which were demonstrated recently at General Motors-Holden's Ltd where a pay rise to one section of the work force had to feed through to others, which caused a great deal of industrial disputation. I remind him of the criticisms of the rigidities of the system insofar as there is a denial of any incentive for increased productivity and effort. Those criticisms were made very forcefully in a couple of papers put forward by Mr Charles Fitzgibbon. It is that area of rigidity to which my question also relates. I ask him: Is the Government addressing that serious problem in the Australian economy, which clearly goes to our ability to become more trade competitive? Senator BUTTON —I do not want to go over this fundamental issue again. If the Opposition policies enunciated by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Brown, were put into practice, the trade exposed sector of the economy would be greatly affected by industrial relations problems-which, under this Government, it has not been to anything like the extent that it was under the previous Government, which was in power for seven disastrous years. The fact is that these things have to be changed and results have to be achieved progressively and steadily. Results are being achieved. For example, in 1982, the last year of the previous Government, man hours lost in the iron ore industry amounted to 109,000. The figure last year was 24,000. That progress has been made in a number of industries. In the steel industry 43,000 man hours were lost under the previous Government, and 4,000 last year under this Government. That is the sort of progress which is being made and which is documented. That progress is made steadily by a process of consultation and changes in attitude-not by the sort of stuff which Neil Brown keeps talking about. Senator Chaney —Certainly Peko has changed your attitudes quite quickly. Senator BUTTON —No, Peko-Wallsend Ltd has done nothing to change my attitude, except to convince me that the Liberal Party which sits in opposition here is the greatest intellectual vacuum that I have ever seen in this country. That vacuum is filled by any group of nutters around the country who start off on these absurd exercises such as the Peko-Wallsend one. One thing one can say with certainty about Peko-Wallsend is that for a long time it condoned practices of which it has suddenly decided that it disapproves. The second thing one can say with certainty about Peko-Wallsend is that it made a record profit last year in spite of all of that. The third thing that one can say with certainty is that the Peko-Wallsend company will have much greater difficulties in handling its industrial relations and productivityproblems-- Senator Chaney —Is that a threat from one of-- Senator BUTTON —No, it is not a threat; it is a comment. Peko-Wallsend will have much greater difficulty handling its industrial relations problems than will many of its competitors which have produced the results that I have just cited-that is, 109,000 man hours lost under the previous Government but 24,000 man hours lost under this Government. They are the results that have been produced as distinct from the Peko-Wallsend performance. That is the difference between our performance and what hap-pened at Peko-Wall-send and what has affected the brain of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Brown. Senator Durack —At least they have reduced their work force. Senator BUTTON —Brilliant, Senator. These things have affected the brain of Mr Brown and have affected the Liberal Party. Peko-Wallsend has made work practices the flavour of the month for the Opposition. Next month it will be something else. All that it indicates is the intellectual vacuum about which I talked earlier in the answer to this question. That is all that it indicates. Senator Chaney —How come you have moved to fill our vacuum? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney, you are interjecting far too frequently. I ask that interjections cease. This question, the supplementary question and the answers have taken about nine minutes already. Senator BUTTON —I do not mind the interjections because, in a sense, they are encouraging. They show just a tiny little bit of thought going on over in Senator Chaney's seat, if not in all the other seats on the other side of the chamber. Senator Chaney says that we moved quickly as a result of Peko-Wallsend's action. What a lot of rubbish. As a result of the industry councils which we - - Senator Walters —As a result of John Howard. Senator BUTTON —As a result of who? John Howard? Opposition senators cannot confront the facts. Let me put the facts to them again-disputation in the iron ore industry, disputation in the steel industry. Opposition senators cannot compete with that. They are the facts and they have been arrived at by a process of consultation and negotiation which has been going on for a long time. We did not need any Peko-Wallsends to help us, thanks. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister for Education. In view of the recently announced crackdown on social security fraud, will the Minister move to introduce a similar crackdown on tertiary education assistance fraud involving doctors, businessmen and other self-employed people who are able to arrange their business affairs so as to enable them successfully to claim tertiary education allowances for their dependent children? Will the Minister request her Department to document the parental occupations of all tertiary education assistance scheme recipients as a first step in closing the door on the affluent self-employed whose student dependants can often afford to drive expensive cars around campuses yet front up for government assistance which is not available to many salaried families? Senator RYAN —My Department carries out fairly extensive checking of claims for TEAS. All claimants have to make statutory declarations about their parents' income. There are also spot checks of those claims in co-operation with the Australian Taxation Office. My Department's capacity to check in detail every applicant for TEAS is not, of course, as great as that of the Taxation Office. It is unfortunate that, despite my Department's efforts, it appears from time to time that there are TEAS cheats. It is a very bad thing that affluent parents encourage their children to engage in that sort of activity, thus undermining the morality of our society. It is a very bad thing because it means that money that should be targeted to poorer students from poorer families-that is the intention of TEAS-is being diverted in this way. Many members of parliament, and obviously Senator Reynolds, believe that there is extensive cheating. Because of the cheating, there are difficulties in increasing the level of TEAS allowance paid and in liberalising the means test on families. We have done both those things in the recent Budget but, undoubtedly, more could be done if everyone could be confident that all TEAS payments went to those who truly justified them. I am very concerned about the matters that Senator Reynolds has raised. I shall certainly discuss with my Department methods of ensuring-to the extent of our capacity to do so-that all claimants are what they claim to be. I point out that the administrative resources involved in Senator Reynolds's suggestion that every occupation should be documented, and so forth, are very great and probably beyond the present capacity of the Department. However, there is no doubt that some students claim TEAS allowances to which they are not entitled. This is a major problem and I shall be having discussions with my Department to try to overcome it as much as we can. Senator VANSTONE —My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer the Minister to recent public statements by the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that prominent Australians should presume that their telephones are bugged. How many telephone taps were authorised for ASIO over the past year? Does this number represent the totality of prominent Australians as defined by ASIO? If not, does the Director-General's statement imply that ASIO engages in telephone interceptions outside of those authorised, or was his reference intended to imply that all this tapping is illegal? Lastly, is it Government policy that prominent Australians should have their telephones tapped? If not, what is the Government doing to overcome the situation exposed by the Director-General? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can assure Senator Vanstone that the Director-General of ASIO was not saying that prominent Australians should assume that their telephones are tapped by ASIO. There are, in fact, very few authorised warrants each year. I am unable to comment in any more detail than that, except to say that there is no foundation for any inference being drawn from those remarks that anyone has anything particularly to fear from our security organisation in that respect. Of course, what was being said was that the technology involved in telephone tapping is relatively easy to apply. It simply has to be assumed that the security of our telecommunications installation is such, given the nature of that technology, that no one can be completely certain that his or her conversations are immune from scrutiny from those outside government who are capable of and motivated to impose such interceptions. Senator ELSTOB —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Defence comment on the latest report of the Federal Auditor-General which found that the Government Aircraft Factories is in danger of losing some of the export work it should have gained as a result of the FA18 purchase? What are the reasons for this? What action will the Government be taking to ensure that the Factories gains the maximum possible offsets and becomes commercially viable? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Auditor-General drew attention to the fact that offsets work for flaps and shrouds for FA18 aircraft was valued at $165m. Senator Crowley —That sounds like work for an undertaker. Senator GARETH EVANS —They are not those sorts of shrouds. The Auditor-General raised a number of problems relating to the cost and the timeliness of the production of these items. These included delays in delivery of free-in-aid materials; significant re-work of tooling items; emission problems causing facilities closure; delays in commissioning facilities; delays in testing assemblies; insufficient staff for cost control; inadequate testing facilities and delays in expanding test facilities; a need to re-work profiling of honeycomb and composite assemblies; and industrial relations. That is a fairly formidable list. The Auditor-General concluded that GAF management and its work force will have to make the utmost effort to reduce costs per se to break even. Management also faces the challenge of securing further orders to meet the Factories' production capacity. The Auditor-General also points to the need to strengthen financial controls and to increase cost-profit consciousness. The Minister for Defence acknowledges that there have been major problems at GAF and that these have to be addressed. The Government has taken action to reduce overstaffing-some 350 staff have now left the Government Aircraft Factories-and this will have obvious implications for the cost of production across the range of products, including flaps and shrouds. Problems in the areas of non-destructive testing of these items have been addressed by the short term recruitment of expert staff from the United States of America. The third shift on the production of these items will commence as soon as the necessary trained staff are available. Problems in the supply of materials, which are the latest in lightweight composites, have also been addressed. I am further advised by the Minister for Defence that industrial action has been a cause for concern and continues to flare up from time to time but there is a belief that the unions and the staff are now starting to realise the importance of the performance of the Factories to their long term viability and the national interest. Finally, I mention the Government's decision to turn GAF into a Government-owned company. We are confident that this will inject a greater degree of cost consciousness and commercial practice into the Factories. Senator POWELL —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs. Is it a fact that in the current round of funding for youth organisations under the program of assistance to youth organisations-PAYO-all four female groups making applications were unsuccessful in spite of the fact that the full $1m appropriated was not allocated? Have any of the unsuccessful women's organisations been asked to resubmit their applications? If not, why not? What action is being considered to ensure that there is a fair deal for women's youth groups? Senator BUTTON —I suggest that the honourable senator place that question on notice. It is a matter of some detail. I will obtain an answer for her as quickly as I can. Senator DEVLIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. In 1984 the Minister commissioned an inquiry into the repatriation hospital system and received the final report of the Brand Review of the Repatriation Hospital System in June 1985. Will the Minister outline the progress to date in establishing Federal and State standing committees in the veterans' health and hospital area? Can the Minister give assurances as to the continuing need for the repatriation hospital system? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that I commissioned Dr Brand to inquire into the circumstances of the current operations of the repatriation hospital system and to report upon its future, its resources and its general capacity to fulfil its obligations to the Commonwealth Government. That report was presented to the Parliament. Arising out of that report I recall advising the Senate in the autumn session that the Prime Minister would be writing to all the State Premiers suggesting that a standing committee of senior State and Federal officials should be established to advise on the means by which these matters could be examined by the committee on the veterans' health and hospital areas. All the Premiers responded favourably to the Prime Minister's suggestion and standing committees have now been established in every State. Currently negotiations are being conducted very favourably at that level without any difficulties by any of the State health departments. I place on public record my appreciation of all the Premiers for agreeing to co-operate in these future negotiations about the repatriation hospitals. The repatriation hospital system will continue to operate as a separate hospital system for veterans and entitlement beneficiaries in the foreseeable future. However, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, there is a need for some flexibility having regard to the geographical location of many veterans who now live outside the main metropolitan areas of Australia. These sorts of concerns will provide veterans with the option of being accommodated in other State hospitals within their regions. These matters are being discussed by the Commonwealth-State standing committee. I give Senator Devlin an assurance that negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily. I believe that in the short and the long term it will be in the best interests of the veteran community. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Was the Budget decision to reduce funding by $30.6m in the full year for the English as a second language program the result of a cost cutting suggestion put forward by the Department of Education, or was it imposed on the Minister by the arbitrary action of the Expenditure Review Committee? In view of the outcry that has occurred over the decision, I ask: Firstly, has the Minister discussed the matter directly with the Prime Minister or exchanged correspondence with him? Secondly, did the Minister for Education attend the much publicised meeting between Mr Unsworth and the Prime Minister at which the New South Wales Premier expressed his Government's disgust at the ESL cuts and urged reversal of the decision? Finally, quite apart from the band-aid or buck passing to the States of measures indicated by the Minister yesterday in Question Time, is there any prospect of the offending decision itself being changed? Senator RYAN —I think I will ignore Senator Teague's impertinent, inquisitive questions about budgetary processes. I am not going to give him a tutorial on the way the Expenditure Review Committee works. If Senator Teague has a genuine interest in those migrant children who benefit from ESL, I will remind him of what I said yesterday, which is that any reductions from that program can be overcome by allocating funds from the $38m unallocated extra recurrent funding. They can also be assisted through the participation and equity program, for which $24m has been allocated this year, and they will benefit from the extra $4m announced by me last week to assist migrant children in their learning across the curriculum. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I ask again: Did the Minister attend with Mr Unsworth when he protested and sought a direct reversal of the decision? Senator RYAN —No. Senator FOREMAN —Has the attention of the Minister for Education been drawn to an article which appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser on 16 September 1986 entitled `Students oppose new tertiary fees despite enrolment risk'? In that article it was stated that many students fear that the new administration fee is the first of a long list of tertiary fees to be introduced by this Government. Will the Minister state whether such fears are well-founded or whether they can be laid to rest? Senator RYAN —The fears that student leaders have expressed that the $250 administration charge will be changed by us into a major tuition fee are ill-founded and can be laid to rest. The Government has made it very clear that, while we decided to proceed with this charge because of the budgetary constraints, we will not be imposing tuition fees, and that with regard to the charge itself our intention is to index it according to the consumer price index in each Budget. If we were interested in charging tuition fees, like the Opposition is, of course, we would be looking in the vicinity of $6,000 to $14,000 a year, which would represent the full cost of fees. It is interesting that Senator Walters shakes her head, because everybody in this place and certainly all students are aware of the fact that the official policy determined by the Liberal Party at what passes for its national conference is to charge the full cost. The only way in which the students' fears would be realised would be in the highly unlikely event of a Howard-led Liberal Party coming to government, and then indeed students would be charged $6,000 to $14,000 a year since that is Opposition policy. This Government's policy is not to charge tuition fees, but simply to impose a modest administration charge. Senator Foreman will be pleased to know that I had extensive discussions with representatives of all higher education institutions in his State last Friday, as I have had with student leaders from most parts of Australia. In these discussions I pointed out that the charge will benefit the thousand students who will get new places and the institutions, which will get a net addition of about $10m, and will assist the Government to deal with the difficult economic circumstances. But the charge is not a tuition fee. It is not the Government's intention to proceed to charge a tuition fee. The only people who have such an intention are the Liberals. Senator SHEIL —Will the Minister for Resources and Energy indicate to the Senate whether the Government will allow further uranium mining in Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —I wonder where Senator Sheil has been in the last few months. The short answer is no. The Government's policy is unequivocally committed - - Senator Vanstone —Changing sides again. Senator GARETH EVANS —Listen, flower girl, hold your horses. The policy is perfectly clear. There is no incentive, given the present supply and demand for world uranium, even to contemplate changing it. Uranium mining will be permitted only from Ranger, from Nabarlek and from Roxby Downs. Senator CROWLEY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. In the light of the proposed changes to the Human Rights Commission, will the Minister inform the Senate what stage planning for the changes has reached and in particular what provisions are being made for adequate delivery of services under the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act? Senator GARETH EVANS —The future of both the sex and race discrimination Acts is well and truly assured, although there will be new institutional arrangements. The existing Human Rights Commission Act terminates under a sunset clause at the end of this year, but it is intended to implement the new legislation that was before this Parliament, albeit with an amended name. Instead of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which was to have been its name, the new body will now simply be known as the Equal Opportunity Commission. There will be some reduced staffing and some reduction in funds for the new body, reflecting a narrower range of activities than was originally proposed for it. The administration of both the race and sex discrimination Acts will, however, remain fully viable and, indeed, that will now be the primary function of the Commission. The Attorney-General has established a task force to work on the refinement of the details of the current legislative proposal and the administrative and staffing changes associated with it. That task force is presently meeting and I have no doubt that the legislation flowing from it and any further amendments to the Bill now before the Parliament will come before the Parliament quite soon. Senator ARCHER —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Science. Is it a fact that the Government has denied the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and universities the opportunity to participate in research for the strategic defence initiative? Does the Minister agree that much of the SDI research is at the forefront of developments in new technologies, for example, remote sensing, micro-electronics and new materials-research areas in which Australia has particular expertise and which could be used to help Australian primary, secondary and tertiary industries improve their technological capability? Does the Minister agree with the director of the CSIRO's Office of Space Science and Applications, who has warned that countries that refuse to participate in the SDI effort will find it difficult to gain access to these new technologies and thereby damage their international trading prospects? Does the Minister not agree that the Government is pursuing a contradictory approach to industry policy by promoting research and development, including space research on the one hand, and locking out our best scientists, and therefore industry, from the latest developments because of ideological considerations? Senator BUTTON —The first thing that can be said about the strategic defence initiative program is that government institutions such as the CSIRO and the universities, insofar as they are funded by government, will not be participating or encouraged to participate in the program. There are two reasons for that. The first is that, in terms of international affairs, the Government regards the SDI program as somewhat provocative, creating rather than reducing tension in international dialogue. The second reason is that there are considerable doubts about the credibility of the SDI program at all. Those doubts have been expressed by the majority of United States scientists through their various organisations, and I think it is fair to say that, in most scientific communities in the United States itself, the SDI program is regarded as less than reputable. Having said that, I refer to the views of Dr McCracken, from the CSIRO Office of Space Science and Applications. Dr McCracken is most diligent in the pursuit of the interests of his professional colleagues and in promoting research in a wide variety of areas. However, the view that countries that do not participate in the SDI program will somehow slip down the scale of international sophistication in scientific research and industrial development is, I think, stretching a somewhat long bow. Let me make the point that under a Liberal government this country was in that league throughout the 1960s and the 1970s. If one looks at the performance in research and development in this country during those years, one sees that it was absolutely abysmal by world standards. A lot of money was poured into research and development. That money was wasted by Liberal Party governments. It just went straight down the chute because the incentives were entirely wrong. There was no reflection on the appropriate incentives that might be provided for research and development in this country. Dr McCracken may think that our refusal to participate in the SDI program will be a backward step in terms of the economic and industrial development of this country, but I point out that that effect would be minuscule, if not non-existent, compared with the effect produced by years of neglect under conservative governments. Senator COOK —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to an advertisement inserted in a number of newspapers throughout Queensland last month by the Queensland National Party headlined `Taxes are Killing Australia', which depicts an individual shackled with chains and covered in labels with the names of various taxes, many of which are fictitious and inventive? If the Minister has seen that advertisement, can he provide any information in relation to the advertisement's claims that the Queensland National Party is the only political party committed to the abolition of all fringe benefits taxes? Senator WALSH —I have seen the advertisement to which Senator Cook refers. Although it seems to be principally concerned with an attack on the fringe benefits tax, it is in fact more an attack on the Liberal Party. The advertisement states: . . . you've heard a lot of tax promises from the Liberal Party. That is true, of course-it is about the only thing in the advertisement that is true. There has been $6 billion worth of tax promises from the present Opposition Leader-$6 billion worth of tax promises from the Treasurer who presided over a Budget situation in which the deficit would have been 5 per cent of gross domestic product had this Government not been elected. Senator Sibraa —The $10 billion man. Senator WALSH —Yes, the $10 billion man, as Senator Sibraa says. That is about the only thing in the advertisement that is correct. Among other things, the advertisement states: The Queensland Nationals are the only political party with a proven record of reducing taxes. The truth is that for the two years from the June quarter 1984 to the June quarter 1986 the government charges index for Brisbane went up by 21.8 per cent-almost 22 per cent in just two years. The weighted average for the eight capitals was 14.8 per cent, which, as one would expect, was about in line with the consumer price index increase over the same period. In the year June 1985 to June 1986 the government charges index for Brisbane went up by 9.5 per cent against an eight capitals weighted average of 6.6 per cent, which was somewhat below the consumer price index for the same period. So, far from the Queensland Nationals being the only party with a proven record of reducing taxes, the Queensland Nationals have in fact increased government taxes at a faster rate than any other government in Australia, and over the last two years by 7 per cent more than the consumer price index. However, to return to the main theme of the advertisement, which is an attack on the Liberal Party, the following statement is made: In all of Australia, there is only one party, the Queensland Nationals, that is totally committed to the abolition of all fringe benefit taxes. If that were true, the Premier would be repudiating what he said at the National Tax Summit last year, which may be found on page 24 of the Hansard record of the Tax Summit. The Premier said: . . . fringe benefits taxed on the beneficiaries but with employers to be required to record such benefits on group certificates . . . That was part of the official submission from the Queensland Government. So, if it is true that the Queensland Government is now opposed to the taxing of fringe benefits, there has been a 180-degree turn in its policy in the last 13 months. What is more extraordinary about that, of course, is that, as well as being a clear attack on the Liberal Party, it has to be an attack on the Federal National Party of Australia. Indeed, the whole tone of the advertisement suggests that there are two National parties, a Federal National Party and a Queensland National Party. The advertisement clearly suggests that the Federal National Party is no more to be trusted than John Howard. That is probably true, so there are two correct statements in it. The advertisement is typical of so much of the National Party propaganda that has recently come out of Queensland. It is a symptom of a government which is in decline. Senator Coates —Corrupt. Senator WALSH —Somebody said that the Government is corrupt and I do not think that is too strong a word. It is a government which, above all, has been found out and is floundering around desperately trying to survive the election it has to face in a month or two, and it does not care how many lies it has to tell in its attempt to do that. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In respect of the fringe benefits tax as it applies to motor vehicles, does the Minister agree with the Treasurer that only private usage of a vehicle needs to be entered into a log book where that alternative has been chosen? If so, how does the Minister explain the meaning of the definition `relevant car documents' in section 136 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act and the deeming in section 161 of a number of consecutive business journeys being considered as a single business journey? If the vehicle is garaged at the place of business and never used privately, does the Minister also agree with the Treasurer's statement that no entries are necessary for the entire year? Does the Minister expect that the Commissioner of Taxation would accept a blank log book as substantiation of 100 per cent business use? Senator WALSH —In relation to the first part of the question, as I understand it it is the case that documentation for private usage will be accepted by the Commissioner, but I will seek some official response from the Treasurer on that and give it to Senator Parer. I will not enter into the area of interpreting the law. Indeed, anybody who is even vaguely aware of the interpretation of tax law in Australia over recent years will know that it has been interpreted in absurd ways from time to time, principally of course by the High Court of Australia, under the tuition and domination of Garfield Barwick, which has repeatedly said that the words do not mean what they say. Since the Opposition is so interested in pursuing High Court judges, whether they sit on the bench or have ceased to sit on the bench, I suggest it should initiate an inquiry into Barwick's record, not on the High Court, but in relation to tax evasion and forgery. In particular, I suggest that the Opposition should press for an inquiry into such matters as when was that letter which Barwick produced in 1981 with a 1974 date on it - - The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is clearly debating the question directed to him by Senator Parer. I ask him to come back to the salient feature of the question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. The point I am demonstrating is that the interpretation of the tax laws is a matter which is obviously very complex and I will try not to go into it here, interpreting the sections Senator Parer has quoted. I will refer that to the Treasurer. Senator Messner —He doesn't know the answer. Senator WALSH —The Opposition might ask when those returns for Mundroola Pty Ltd were filed with the Corporate Affairs Commission and who filed them. If the Opposition is interested in pursuing High Court judges to and beyond the grave, why does the Opposition not get on to that, Senator Messner? Senator JONES —I ask the Minister for Finance: Has his attention been drawn to an advertisement which appeared in the Brisbane Sunday Mail of 14 September above the logo of the Queensland Government, entitled `How Queensland stands out from the crowd'? Does the advertisement specify six key economic indicators: Employment growth; high population growth; retail sales growth; high export earnings; low tax; and investment? In view of the fact that Queensland's claim is wrong in five out of the six, what measures can the Commonwealth Government take to redress this misleading advertising which was clearly commissioned by the National Party of Australia at the expense of the Queensland taxpayers? Can the Minister outline the real position of the Queensland economy in relation to the Australian economic recovery? Can the Minister specify the areas in which the Queensland Government has blatantly sought to mislead the people of Queensland prior to the State elections? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. That question in no way touches on any of the responsibilities of the Minister or the Government. I take the point of order that it has nothing to do with any aspect of the admi-nistration of the Commonwealth of Australia. Senator Jones —On the point of order: The question does relate to Federal matters because I asked about the relationship of the Queensland economy to the Australian economy and the Australian recovery. The PRESIDENT —I will allow the question. Senator WALSH —May I at the outset express my surprise at Senator Chaney's eagerness, displayed on two occasions this week, to protect the National Party Government in Brisbane from the exposure of its corruption. That is the se-cond time he has done it this week; let that be noted. I hope that the Queensland Liberal Party is noting it as well. The advertisement to which Senator Jones referred appears to be funded by the taxpayers and is yet another clear misuse of public funds by the corrupt Government in Brisbane. The facts, or alleged facts, in it are either wrong, obsolete or distorted. I will go through them one by one. Firstly, the advertisement claims that Queensland is a State of high employment growth and that it has the highest employment growth rate of any State. The most recent available figures show that Western Australia has the highest rate of employment growth-that is for August 1986 over August 1985-at 4.2 per cent, as against Queensland with 3.4 per cent. If one goes back one month further and takes the July 1986 figures over July 1985, Western Australia's employment rate grew by 5.1 per cent and Queensland's by 3.8 per cent. More important are the facts conveniently left out-that Queensland in every month since September 1984 has had either the highest or the second highest rate of unemployment of any State and that at present it has an unemployment rate of 9.4 per cent, compared with 8 per cent nationally. The advertisement asserts also that Queensland has a high population growth and links that to the alleged high rate of employment growth. Queensland does have a high rate of population growth, but most people are either too old or too young to be in the work force. The prime age work force-those aged between 15 and 45-had a net loss of 2,600 in population from Queensland in the most recent year for which statistics are available. The advertisement asserts also that Queensland is the low tax State. I referred to this in answer to an earlier question. Queensland over the past two years had not only a rate of increase in government charges which is 7 per cent higher than the consumer price index, but also the highest increase in government charges of any State over those two years. Alternatively, if one looks at the period from June 1984 to June 1985, the answer is the same; Queensland had a rate of increase in State charges which was higher than the CPI and the highest of any State. The advertisement claims that Queensland is the right place to invest and live. The facts are that the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on new fixed capital expenditure-that is, ABS forecasts for 1986-87 over 1985-86-forecast national growth of 26.9 per cent compared with only 2.9 per cent in Queensland, which of course represents a real decline in the new fixed capital expenditure in the State. Other things that might well have been mentioned in the advertisement, but were not, are the facts that Queensland has the lowest male average weekly earnings of any State in Australia, had the highest drop in the number of new dwelling units approved in the June quarter 1986 compared with the same quarter a year earlier, had the highest growth in bankruptcies of any State in the years 1985-86 and 1984-85, and had a below average performance in industrial disputations, job vacancies, overtime work, residential buildings completions, buildings under construction, household income, motor vehicle registrations and growth in the number of new telephone connections. Senator BOSWELL —I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether he is aware of a letter signed by Dr Neal Blewett, the Federal Minister for Health, Greg Crafter, the Minister of Community Welfare in South Australia, and John Scott, the Federal member for Hindmarsh, part of which letter states: The Federal Government has given its blessing to the establishment of an information office for the African National Congress and SWAPO. It remains for us to provide the support that will sustain this office and make it effective. Can the Minister state whether these three prominent Australian Labor Party members are in breach of the provisions of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act which say that to give money to an association that is engaging in hostile activities against the government of a foreign country by unlawfully destroying any of that foreign government's property is an offence? If it is an offence, will the Minister ask the Attorney - - The PRESIDENT —Order! That part of the question is clearly out of order. The honourable senator is not entitled to seek a legal opinion at Question Time. Senator BOSWELL —Will the Minister refer the question to the Director of Public Prosecutions and, if it is an offence, will he ask the Attorney-General to bring charges against these three men for an offence under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act? The PRESIDENT —Order! In respect of those portions of the question which I have allowed I will ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General to reply, but clearly the Minister representing the Attorney-General is not entitled to give a legal opinion at Question Time. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not entitled to do so even if it is utterly cock-and-bull nonsense, comprehensive nonsense, that I am being fed by Senator Boswell? It is a pity that I am not allowed to say that, Mr President. I just say that, as to the whole business of the South West African People's Organisation and the African National Congress which is exercising the gibbering intellect of the Queensland Premier and his acolytes, the point that needs to be made is simply that the ANC and SWAPO have established information offices in Australia pursuant to permission granted, initially, through the Minister for Foreign Affairs and announced by him in October 1983. The conditions of operation of those organisations here are that neither the representatives nor their respective officers will enjoy any status, privileges or immunities, that they will not espouse the cause of violence, that they be subject to Australian laws and that the Australian Government will provide no financial assistance to their offices or their respective representatives. We have absolutely no reason to believe at this time that the information offices of ANC and SWAPO are not abiding by the terms under which they were permitted to establish information offices in Australia, and there is no foundation whatsoever for any aspect of Senator Boswell's question. Senator BLACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Have comments by the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Neil Turner, on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's AM program this morning been brought to the Minister's attention? If so, can the Minister clarify his answer in the Senate this week in which he said that he would shortly be `communicating with the Queensland Government and asking it to supply a comprehensive list of the natural disaster relief arrangement loans which have been made' in relation to the Queensland Minister's comments that this was an attempt to malign senior public servants in Queensland, since the loans were allocated according to guidelines set out in a Commonwealth-State arrangement? Senator WALSH —I did not hear Mr Turner's comments on AM this morning, nor have I been able to get a transcript of them yet. I will read them with interest later in the day. I have, however, been given an account of what Mr Turner said. The main point has already been brought out by Senator Black; that is, that Mr Turner is asserting that the Commonwealth Government is impugning the integrity of Queensland public servants by calling for a comprehensive list of loan recipients and the specific identification of those individual loans where the recommendations of the Queensland Public Service and the Rural Reconstruction Board were overturned. I cannot think, even by Queensland standards, of a more blatant example of standing truth on its head. It is not the integrity of the Queensland public servants which is being impugned; it is the integrity of the Queensland Government. That has been apparent from the very beginning. What the Commonwealth wants to know is the number of occasions on which the proper recommendations of the Queensland Public Service and the Rural Reconstruction Board, consistent with the guidelines for the granting of natural disaster relief loans, were overruled politically in order to provide slush funds to favourites of the Queensland National Party. It is the corruption of the Queensland Government which is the main issue here, not the integrity of the Queensland Public Service. There is, of course, nothing new about corruption in Queensland. What is new about this issue is that this time it involves Federal money and, therefore, the full extent of the corruption is much more likely to be flushed out than it normally is when the Queensland Government's misuse of funds is restricted to funds provided by Queensland. Further evidence, if any was needed, of the need to acquire these details from the Queensland Government was provided by a Mr Menzel, who is apparently the National Party member for Mulgrave, in a radio interview broadcast this morning, I think-I am not quite sure of that-in which the reporter, Greg Turnbull, said: A National Party Backbencher told me he had approached Mr Turner hundreds of times on behalf of farmers whose loan applications had been rejected and on each occasion the bank's original decision had been overturned. Max Menzel, the member for the Babinda area, sees nothing wrong with the Minister overriding the bank for any farmer. Mr Menzel himself said: Well, I don't believe that a bureaucrat or a bank manager in Brisbane can really understand the problems that exist out on the farm. So out of Mr Menzel's mouth we have the allegation that this is not a one-off aberration-this intervention to provide a National Party lackey or apparatchik, quite improperly, with a 4 per cent loan, much of which was ultimately provided by Commonwealth taxpayers-but it is something which, according to the National Party of Queensland, has happened hundreds of times. Well, I want confirmation of whether it has happened hundreds of times, and that is what I will be seeking from the Queensland Government, with the details of those individual loans where the applications have been overruled. I might say that I am not very optimistic about getting that information in the near future because, of course, the Queensland Government will cover up its misdeeds to the greatest extent that it possibly can. I return to Mr Menzel, who said that he could not see anything wrong with a politician overruling the proper processes of the administration of these loans, as long, of course, I suppose, as it was done for some good National Party member. He is not quite right about that either. As was pointed out in the Daily Sun this morning in an article by Wayne Sanderson which observed in passing that, in the end result, accountability in Queensland is a matter of chance: The unexpected sting in the tail of the Behan affair for the government may be the reaction of struggling primary producers. He goes on to say: Publicly, rural industry leaders have expressed concern that the normal system for spreading the limited funds available around the seemingly unlimited number of farmers in desperate financial situations has been overridden. Privately, some of these leaders and individual farmers have expressed much stronger feelings against the move. This draws attention to the fact, of course, that these funds are limited and have to be rationed. They should be rationed according to publicly stated guidelines, not according to the whim, caprice or worse of a particular Minister in the Queensland Government, whether acting with or without the knowledge of the Premier or upon the instructions of the Premier. The more the scandal unfolds-I will close on this note-the more contradictions and plain untruths come out of the mouths of various Queensland politicians. Initially we were told that the Premier did not know about the Behan loan and that it had not been discussed with him. That was what Mr Turner said. Then Mr Behan said that he had discussed it with the Premier. Now Mr Turner says that he may have discussed it with the Premier. Everybody seems to have had a convenient lapse of memory which has led them to contradict either what he said the day before or what some of his colleagues said either on a previous occasion or at the same time. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Minister for Finance. In light of the great amount of time he spent on boning up on the situation in Queensland, I ask him what he is doing about the current extraordinarily high interest rates that are preventing Australian business from getting on with the job. What will the Government do about the 19 per cent interest rate? Senator WALSH —I am doing everything I can to make sure that the discredited former Treasurer does not become Prime Minister because the highest interest rates that the country has ever seen were in April 1982 when Mr Howard was the Treasurer and the 90-day bank bill rate hit 22 per cent. If Senator Chaney is concerned about interest rates, I suggest that he join that little group that meets around Andrew Peacock at lunchtime every day in the parliamentary dining room in order to get rid of Mr Howard as Leader of his Party. Motion (by Senator Kilgariff)-by leave-proposed: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for the periods indicated, on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business- Senator Hamer-16 September to 25 September 1986 inclusive Senator Hill-16 September 1986 to the last day of sitting of 1986 inclusive Senator Jessop-7 October to 10 October 1986 inclusive Senator Lewis-18 September to 10 October 1986 inclusive Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.08) —Mr President, this is a newie on me. Is there something in the Standing Orders that I have missed? Senator Button —You have missed the gravy train, not the Standing Orders. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, I am not going on any overseas trip. I did not understand that leave was necessary for absences of less than two months. I am not sure why this motion is before us. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.09) —I just want to say that the situation is open to misunderstanding when statistics are published showing senators, from either side of the chamber, being absent without leave when in fact they have been taking part in parliamentary delegations, such as Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegations and things of that sort. Within the last 12 months statistics have been published showing the attendance of senators. Those statistics can be most misleading, particularly when senators are absent without leave. A false impression can be created when senators are absent on parliamentary business. The motion has been moved by the Opposition Whip simply to show that these people will be absent for no other reason than that they are on parliamentary business. It is an entitlement; it is not obligatory. Senator Harradine —Mr President, was that a point of order? The PRESIDENT —No; as I understand it, it was a speech to the motion. Senator Harradine —I am sorry, but Senator Chaney rose while I was on my feet. I now seek leave to make a further comment. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I apologise. I thought Senator Chaney's contribution was a point of order. I suggest that this motion is a precedent which could result in a senator on sick leave having to seek the leave of the Senate, otherwise that senator would be shown in the records as being absent without leave. It is ridiculous to establish such a precedent. The Senate ought to examine this. This is the first time that I have heard in this chamber such a motion for a period of leave less than two months. If the Senate records show absence without leave-I am not sure what the Senate records show because I am not interested in making political points or otherwise about the Senate records in this regard-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Others are, though. Senator HARRADINE —Others may be. The point is that we need a degree of trust among senators. Senator Kilgariff —Not a matter of trust; statistics. Senator HARRADINE —All right. If the statistics are to show that one is absent without leave unless leave is granted as per a motion such as this, a precedent will be established for which honourable senators will be sorry. For example, when senators are ill they are shown as absent without leave. I know that on a number of occasions senators have been absent because of genuine illness. I trust my colleagues when they take sick leave. Under present arrangements they are shown as absent without leave. Where will this end? This is the first time that I have heard such a motion put to the chamber and I believe it is a precedent that honourable senators may well regret. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.12) —I know that Senator Harradine is concerned, and rightly so, but I reiterate the point that Senator Chaney made. In times past honourable senators have been absent from here on parliamentary duty and that has been used against them at a later time. So that that does not happen, when honourable senators are representing this Parliament in other forums, in other countries, they should be shown as such in a motion such as that moved by Senator Kilgariff. That is pure and simple. There is no ulterior motive. Sickness is something different; one is not on parliamentary duty when one is sick. In this instance honourable senators are representing this Parliament in other forums in other countries, so they are still on parliamentary duty. The purpose of this motion is to take account of that. Senator Georges —You don't need leave then. Senator COLLARD —Unfortunately, one does, for the very simple reason that has been outlined. Honourable senators have been almost vilified about the number of days that they have been absent when on many of those days they have been representing this Parliament in other forums. That is the sole purpose of the motion; there is no ulterior motive. This is simply cleaning up what has been an anomaly. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.13) —in reply-It has always concerned me that the statistics of the Senate show a considerable number of senators absent without leave. This is completely unfair on honourable senators who are away from the Senate for various reasons; on so many occasions they are on parliamentary business. As Opposition Whip, I merely wish to have indicated in the record that honourable senators from this side are not absent without leave but are absent on parliamentary business. It is not a question of trust or anything like that; it is a question of ensuring that the statistics which everyone reads are correct. If honourable senators do not want a motion such as I have moved, they should look at the system of statistics and find some other means of recording absences. In the meantime, I ask that the honourable senators on this side who are already absent or are about to be absent on official parliamentary business be acknowledged as such. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —I table the Portfolio Program Statements 1986-87 and seek leave to make a statement relating thereto and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- This document presents information in the form of program statements for those agencies which have introduced program budgeting for 1986-87. The information it contains is intended to assist Parliament in its examination of the 1986-87 Estimates for these agencies and to aid the general public in reaching a better understanding of the activities undertaken by them. Program statements such as those contained in the document, setting out the objectives and costs of each activity and indicating the basis on which performance is to be assessed, represent one of the important products of program budgeting. As I announced in October 1985, the Government has adopted a phased approach in this area and I expect comparable information to be provided for the programs of most other portfolios next year as most remaining agencies introduce program budgeting for the 1987-88 budgetary processes. The introduction of program budgeting represents one of the wide-ranging series of reforms instituted by this Government to make the machinery of Government more efficient, more responsive and more accountable. Other major reforms undertaken by this Government since coming to office include: Introduction of a financial management improvement program which is directed at assisting Government agencies manage for results by developing the management environment, establishing appropriate standards and practices, and assisting the development of management systems; the introduction of human resource or staff budgeting which has achieved a greater degree of integration of decision-making on staffing and financial resources; and the consolidation of appropriations and the introduction of cash limits, which together have led to more efficient and effective resource use through increasing the flexibility departments have in the use of their administrative resources while providing greater certainty as to the total resources available. The successful development of program budgeting is central to many of these developments. While it is still early days, as it develops program budgeting is providing a basis for more effective program management by Commonwealth bodies, by requiring them to identify objectives and costs and regularly assess results. When fully in place it will also assist the Government's own Budget decision-making by better focusing the budgetary processes on considerations of value-for-money and provide a much improved basis for parliamentary and public scrutiny. The report of the financial management improvement program (FMIP) which I presented to honourable senators earlier this year highlighted that the implementation of FMIP and program budgeting has already led to substantial development of management processes in agencies. Encouraging progress has been made in improving the procedures, attitudes and management information systems of agencies to highlight the results of Government activity and considerations of value-for-money from Government expenditure. While much remains to be done, as indicated in the Budget documents, progress to date has enabled the Government to receive the benefits of efficiency improvements reflected by a general saving of 0.5% in salaries and average staffing levels and 1% in administrative and operational expenses for 1986-87. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will shortly be announcing further developments in his statement concerning the rationalisation and streamlining of the Public Service. As program budgeting is further developed in agencies the Government will have access to more relevant and accurate information on the costs and performance of its programs, thus providing an improved basis for resource allocation decisions. This is of particular significance at a time when the resources available to government are increasingly constrained and the need to obtain maximum value from the tax dollar is most acute. Following the undertaking of a reader survey of the 1985-86 Budget documents, changes were made to a number of the main Statements in this year's Budget Papers to make them more relevant and useful. A number of changes were also made to Budget Paper No. 6 presenting portfolio program estimates to make the information it contains more accessible to Parliamentarians and the public. Together with the information provided by the agencies concerned in their explanations of the estimates and explanatory notes, the publication of the Portfolio Program Statements 1986-87 represents another important step in improving the flow of information concerning the Government's administration. I will be most interested in the report which the Finance and Government Operations Committee will be making to the Senate reviewing the experience of Estimates Committees in this area and recommending directions for the future. In its preliminary report, that Committee raised a number of very fundamental questions about the future arrangements for the Senate's committee system to enable it to take full advantage of the information provided under program budgeting. I believe that the position taken by the Finance and Government Operations Committee in its further report should have a major bearing on the role and cost-effectiveness of the Estimates committee system into the future. Senator WALSH —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the financing of the prospective Budget deficit in 1986-87 and in subsequent years together with the associated prospective deficits in the consolidated revenue fund. Legally, payments from the consolidated revenue fund cannot exceed moneys available to that fund. In order to meet any prospective deficit in the consolidated revenue fund it is customary to seek legislative authority to charge defence and other consolidated revenue fund expenditure to, or reimburse the consolidated revenue fund from, the loan fund. This Bill therefore seeks authority to borrow money for defence and other purposes and to enable certain other expenditures to be met from the loan fund rather than from the consolidated revenue fund. I should make it clear, however, that the Bill does not authorise defence or other expenditures additional to those otherwise authorised by Parliament under annual appropriation Acts and under Acts providing for special or standing appropriations. The Bill is simply a machinery financing measure-the provisions of the Bill in fact explicitly prohibit borrowings for expenditures additional to those authorised by the Parliament. Successive Governments have, for many years, introduced Legislation in the form of an annual loan Bill to authorise the issue of moneys from the loan fund to meet defence expenditures or to reimburse the consolidated revenue fund from loan fund in respect of certain non-defence expenditures. In view of the non-controversial accounting nature of the legislation, which has been acknowledged by all the major parties in the Parliament, the Bill has been drafted as standing rather than annual legislation. That is, the Bill would provide authority for the necessary financing measures for 1986-87 and subsequent financial years to the extent necessary in the light of the respective year's Budget deficits. Standing loan legislation will in no way detract from Parliament's ability to debate the Budget. Nor, as I have already stated, does it impinge upon the Parliament's prerogative to authorise, and appropriate moneys for, expenditures for particular purposes. In the Budget Speech the Treasurer announced that the Budget deficit in prospect for 1986-87 is estimated to be some $3.5 billion. This gives rise to a prospective deficit in the consolidated revenue fund of around $5.1 billion-the consolidated revenue fund deficit can differ somewhat from the Budget deficit as some CRF expenditures and receipts are classified as financing transactions in the functional classification of Budget outlays and, for the purposes of the budget figuring, certain Budget outlays are met direct from either the loan fund or the trust fund. Existing standing authorities enable some $2.5 billion of expenditure to be charged to loan fund in 1986-87 leaving a shortfall of some $2.6 billion for which separate funding authority is required. This Bill seeks authority to borrow moneys accordingly. The amount of borrowings that may be undertaken pursuant to the proposed legislation is, in the case of defence expenditure, the amount for which appropriation is sought for defence purposes in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1)-some $7.2 billion in 1986-87-and any moneys for defence purposes that may be approved in subsequent Appropriation Acts for a particular financial year. The effective limit in 1986-87 is likely to be significantly less than appropriations as defence expenditures cannot be charged to loan fund until the legislation is enacted. The legal limit for borrowing for non-defence purposes is determined by the level of borrowing authority approved by the Loan Council. It is estimated that the 1986-87 limits will be sufficient to enable the financing of the Budget deficit. In concluding, I emphasise that the Bill does not authorise expenditures in excess of those which have already been appropriated by the Parliament under Supply, Appropriation or other Acts. It does not in any way impinge upon the Parliament's prerogative to appropriate public moneys but simply provides a mechanism for financing expenditures previously approved and appropriated by the Parliament. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, I present the report on the amendment to the use of certain broadcasts by educational institutions moved by Senator Durack to the Copyright Amendment Bill 1986, dated September 1986, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. On 11 June 1986, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Durack, moved an amendment to the Copyright Amendment Bill 1986. This amendment relates to the use, by educational institutions, of broadcasts in which copyright subsists in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the Special Broadcasting Service. The amendment proposed that copyright in such broadcasts would not be infringed by the making of copies by educational institutions for educational purposes. During the Committee debate on the Bill, the Senate referred the amendment moved by Senator Durack to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts for `report on the amendment and any other related issues arising out of its deliberations on or before 28 August 1986'. On 21 August 1986, the reporting date was extended by the Senate to 19 September 1986. The Committee advertised the reference in mid-June 1986 and invited the public and interested government departments to make submissions. Ninety-seven submissions were received. Representatives from 12 organisations were invited to attend public hearings in Canberra on 4 and 5 August 1986. These organisations included the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Special Broadcasting Service, the Australian Copyright Council, the Australian Education Council Working Party on Copyright Law and the Audio-visual Distributors Association. The Committee also heard evidence from the Attorney-General's Department. The report which I have tabled today on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts examines the provisions of the amendment in the light of the evidence presented to the inquiry. It also addresses related issues concerning the educational use of audio-visual copyright material. The Committee's primary task was to examine the proposed amendment relating to the educational use of ABC and SBS broadcasts. To do this effectively, it was necessary to review Australian copyright law and, in particular, the copyright law applicable to audio-visual material. The Committee found that, under existing legislation, it is extremely difficult for educational institutions to copy television programs legally, including those programs broadcast by the ABC and SBS. Sub-section 200 (2) and sub-section 10 (1) of the Copyright Act 1968 allow educational institutions to copy radio programs intended for educational purposes but do not allow audio-visual copying of educational television programs. Therefore, educational institutions must either purchase a pre-recorded copy of any program they require or obtain prior permission to copy a broadcast from both the broadcaster and all the other copyright owners in the program. The Committee recognises that the amendment moved by Senator Durack was based on the proposition that television programs are valuable teaching resources and that educational institutions in Australia should have access to these resources. The Committee recommends, however, that the Senate should not proceed with the proposed amendment to the Copyright Amendment Bill 1986. I shall comment in general term on the Committee's reasons for this recommendation. The Committee considers that the amendment suffers from drafting omissions and deficiencies. Evidence presented at the inquiry suggests that the words `broadcasts in which copyright subsists in the ABC or SBS' are capable of three different, yet seemingly tenable, legal interpretations. These varying interpretations are possible because the amendment does not recognise the distinction between the copyright that subsists in a broadcast itself and the underlying copyrights that are contained in a program that is broadcast. The Attorney-General's Department provided the first of these possible interpretations. The Department argued that the effect of the amendment would be to allow educational institutions to off-air copy a direct broadcast only which had within it no other copyright material. If this is the correct interpretation of the meaning of the amendment, then it would apply to very few programs broadcast by the ABC or the SBS. The ABC and the SBS informed the Committee that the amendment is open to two interpretations other than that advanced by the Attorney-General's Department. Firstly, the amendment could apply to programs in which all copyright is owned by the ABC or the SBS. This interpretation seems to be the one intended by Senator Durack. The ABC and the SBS told the Committee, however, that it is unusual for their organisations to own all relevant rights in a program. They acquire a licence to broadcast only. They do not acquire the copyright in the film, scripts or music contained within the program. Even when a program is produced `in-house' by the ABC or the SBS, the broadcasters rarely own the underlying rights to the material which is included in the program. It seems, therefore, that if this interpretation of the amendment were accepted, it would apply to few educationally worthwhile programs. Secondly, the ABC and the SBS argued that the amendment could also be interpreted to allow schools to copy all programs broadcast by them, even though this clearly was not Senator Durack's intention when moving the amendment. The report outlines the financial and operational difficulties that the ABC and SBS might experience if the amendment applied to all programs broadcast by the ABC or the SBS. In the Committee's view, the Senate should not proceed with the amendment as it also contains several specific provisions that are ambiguous, unnecessary or unworkable. These provisions are discussed in chapter 2 of the report. Finally, the Committee considers that the Senate should not proceed with the amendment, even if these technical deficiencies could be overcome, because what is proposed addresses only a part of a much wider requirement. In the Committee's view, there is a need for a scheme which would apply to the educational copying of all television broadcasts, not only those of the ABC and the SBS. As I indicated previously, the Senate also asked the Committee to report on `any other related issues arising out of its deliberations'. I shall now comment on the Committee's findings in relation to educational use of audio-visual material. There is no doubt that audio-visual copying for educational purposes involves many complex issues. Since 1981 the Attorney-General's Department has been reviewing the audio-visual copying provisions of the Copyright Act. Some of the outcomes of that review were incorporated into the Copyright Amendment Bill 1986 from which the Committee's inquiry originated. That Bill, however, did not propose legislative changes relating to educational copying despite the fact that the departmental review has been proceeding for five years. The Committee believes that this delay was caused by the complexities of the issues involved and the difficulties involved in trying to reconcile significantly different points of view held by the interested parties. In chapter 3 of the report the Committee analyses the issues which attracted most comment during the inquiry and those which apparently remain unresolved by the review conducted by the Attorney-General's Department. Major issues include statutory and voluntary licensing, time-shift and retention, record-keeping and payment. In chapter 4 of the report, the Committee reviews the various solutions to the question of educational copying of audio-visual material proposed by the principal interested parties. In this chapter the Committee also reviews procedures being contemplated in the United Kingdom and a scheme being used in Quebec, Canada. In considering the second part of the reference, the Committee found that the intent of the amendment moved by Senator Durack could be achieved by amending present legislation. If sub-section 10 (1) was amended to extend the definition of a record to include `visual images' and if the words `cinematograph film' were added to sub-section 200 (2), educational institutions would be freely able to copy educational television programs intended for educational use. Although this approach has some attraction, the Committee considers that it does not provide the most effective solution to the problems of educational copying. The Committee considers that the copying of schools and other broadcasts should be included in a comprehensive statutory licence scheme which would apply to all television broadcasts and all television broadcasters. A statutory licence scheme would allow educational institutions access to all programs in exchange for equitable remuneration. The Attorney-General's Department has proposed a statutory licence scheme which appears to be reasonably acceptable to all major interests, except the Australian Education Council Working Party on Copyright Law. The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General's Department should develop its proposal for a statutory licensing scheme for educational copying of audio-visual material to the stage where the necessary legislation may be introduced for the Parliament's consideration in the 1987 autumn sittings of the Parliament. The Committee is concerned that, although five years have passed since the review of audio-visual copyright began, the issue of educational copying remains unresolved. In the Committee's view, any further delay must be regarded as unacceptable. I am confident that when legislation relating to the educational use of audio-visual material is introduced into the Senate, the report I have tabled today will be of benefit to honourable senators when debating the legislation. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.29) —I want very briefly to commend this report to the Senate and to assure honourable senators that there was great unanimity on the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts as to the views expressed in the report. It is difficult to see how the amendment moved by Senator Durack will achieve the purpose for which it was intended. In investigating the subject it was clear that there was a very difficult technical area of the law and that it obviously had already taken the Attorney-General's Department five years to proceed through the shoals of difficulties. This raises great difficulties in the area of who pays. Clearly, the property in the copyright is with the owners of the property. It was clear to members of the Committee that, somehow or other, they must in some form be reimbursed for their property. But who pays? Is it the broadcasters, the Federal Government, the State governments and/or the parents? As I have said, negotiations in the Attorney-General's Department have already taken five years. All the people who gave evidence before the Committee praised the work of the Attorney-General's Department. Clearly, it is not a question of people in that Department dragging their feet; it has just been such a difficult area. I simply stand now to urge all those who are involved to reach a solution as soon as possible. The difficulty is that the uncertainty that surrounds this area is most unsatisfactory for all parties. After all, they are people of intelligence and good will and I think there is a wish to reach a solution. I commend the report to the Senate and I urge all parties to reach a solution so that legislation can be brought down in the autumn session. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present reports relating to the refurbishment of Taxation Building, Brisbane, and construction of working accommodation and warehousing for the 51st Supply Battalion, Guildford, Western Australia. Ordered that the reports be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-The proposal referred to the Committee relating to the Brisbane Taxation Office is for the refurbishment of eight floors of the building, refurbishment of the lifts and the installation of fire sprinklers at an estimated cost of $7.21m at March 1986 prices. The Committee concludes that the building located at 320 Adelaide Street, Brisbane, falls short of contemporary standards for office accommodation. A number of alternatives which would rectify the standard of accommodation were examined and the refurbishment option was identified as the most effective. Disruption to work would be minimised by relocating staff whose floors are being refurbished to an adjacent building. The Committee concludes that the extent of the proposed refurbishment is both necessary and generally appears to meet Taxation Office and Commonwealth accommodation guidelines. Nevertheless, the Committee recommends that details of the layout of individual floors and the finish should be provided to the Committee prior to the commencement of work on the project. The proposal involving the 51st Supply Battalion at Guildford, Western Australia, involves the construction of a comprehensive warehousing and headquarters facility at an estimated cost of $8.2m at April 1986 prices. Elements of the 51st Supply Battalion are presently dispersed in a number of locations in Perth. The Committee concludes that there would be advantages in terms of operational efficiency and control if the headquarters is located with the major warehouse complex and the control and purchase offices. The site at Guildford is suitable for the proposed development and provides sufficient space for expansion. The extent of the proposed work is justified. Finally, the Committee recommends that Commonwealth, State and local government authorities should hold urgent discussions aimed at ensuring that the preservation of a railway spur line easement, which could in future link the site to the State rail network, is not compromised in the light of adjacent land use development planning. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(11.35) —Yesterday Senator Walsh indicated that he would be asking the Queensland Government to provide details of certain moneys expended under the rural reconstruction scheme. In Question Time today Senator Walsh reiterated that he would be doing just that. This action follows the extraordinary allocation of $145,000 to a National Party operative in Queensland, Mr Behan. Federal money is involved and, therefore, Senator Walsh has every right to ask for details, especially after the actions that have come to light over the last few weeks. But the Queensland Government, through Mr Turner, is upset that these questions have been asked. I would just like to put a little of the history of this particular matter on record. One of the central people involved is Mr Michael Behan. He is from Isisford, which is in north-west Queensland. He is an unsuccessful National Party of Australia candidate and a prominent National Party figure. From April this year he has been a National Party employee as the northern director in Queensland. In January of this year the Agricultural Bank considered that the Behans had already had a better than average deal from the bank in relation to finance for their property. In early January Mr Behan agreed to put his property on the market as a condition for receiving further funds from the Agricultural Bank. So $15,000 was advanced on the understanding that no further funds would be advanced by the bank. Later in January, despite these conditions, Mr Behan applied for a further advancement of $145,000 and $50,000 from the bank and the Rural Reconstruction Board. Only recently Mr Warburton, the Leader of the Opposition in the State Parliament in Queensland, asked of Mr Turner in a three-page question on notice: Is it not correct that you directed the Agricultural Bank to approve this $145,000 loan to Mr Behan on instruction from the Premier? After that question was asked, the Courier-Mail in Queensland received copies of memos leaked from the bank and board in which officials clearly indicated that the loan to Bilbah Downs, the property in question, should not be advanced. Apparently the situation went as follows: In early March Mr Dellit, the general manager of the Agricultural Bank, wrote to Mr Turner advising that the bank could not accede to the loan request because of the exceedingly high debt structure at the property. This advice followed an approach by Mr Behan to Mr Turner concerning advances. At the same time, Mr Dellit said in a memo that the Rural Reconstruction Board had informed him that Mr Behan had passed the point of no return regarding viability and that the family's equity was being eroded by interest charges at a rate in excess of $2,000 per week. The only advice that could be given to Mr Behan was that he sell the property before his equity was totally lost. This was a view shared by the finance manager of Elders, his trading bank manager at the Commonwealth Bank and the Rural Reconstruction Board. This was stated in the memo that Mr Dellit wrote. Mr Behan was advised on the following day that the application for a loan to reduce his Elders debt, to provide carry on expenses and to provide money to restock had been refused. Shortly after Mr Dellit wrote to the Board saying that Mr Turner had asked the previous day for the case to be reconsidered. A couple of weeks later a ministerial direction was given that the loan be approved, with the condition that the Agricultural Bank operate a priority assignment on Elders for $70,000. On the same day Mr Dellit said in a letter to the Department of Primary Industries that Mr Behan had complained to Mr Turner concerning the approval of the condition. A few days later the Minister requested the bank to withdraw its requirement for a priority lien of $70,000 and to make payment forthwith. An advance of $145,000 was approved by the bank, even though, as Mr Dellit said, its security requirements in regard to cessation of priority had not been finalised. When the matter was raised this month, the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, backed Mr Turner's decision regarding what he termed a `lousy $145,000 loan'. When asked whether he had intervened on behalf of Mr Behan, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen said: `I always support people looking for support and help'. Mr Behan said he has never asked Mr Turner to intervene and his application had gone through the normal channels. Since then there have been conflicting statements as to whether Mr Turner acted on his behalf, whether Mr Behan approached Mr Turner and whether Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen made approaches on behalf of Mr Behan. Some people are saying one thing and some people are saying other things. I suppose that they are matters that will have to be teased out over the next week in the Queensland Parliament. But now Mr Turner is upset that Senator Walsh has asked for details of funding that has been provided under the rural reconstruction funding scheme. The question that must be asked is: Why is Mr Turner upset? Why should he not make details available of the way in which Federal money has been expended? I will ask Mr Turner the question that all Queenslanders will now be asking: What does Mr Turner have to hide? Is he trying to protect more of his National Party cronies who are going in a similar way to the way in which Mr Behan is going? Is he trying to protect the Premier of Queensland, who appears to have been up to his elbows in this whole sordid affair? It is well known that Mr Turner will not be in the Queensland Parliament after the forthcoming election in Queensland. Mr Turner has concluded that he will not be able to hold his seat of Warrego against the popular Australian Labor Party candidate, Gordon Harding. After this fiasco with taxpayers' money, Mr Turner's departure from the State Parliament will be the best action he will take all year. Given the corruption-ridden administration in the Queensland Government, Mr Turner's action could only be improved by a similar departure of the State minority Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns for the consideration by the Senate Estimates committees of departmental estimates, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee D will meet in committee room 6, Estimates Committee E will meet in the Senate Chamber and Estimates Committee F will meet in committee rooms 1 and 2. Prior to the sittings of the committees, the bells will be rung for three minutes. Senate adjourned at 11.43 a.m. The following papers were tabled: Defence Act-Determination 1986 No. 56-Travel-ling Allowance and others. Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of a Ministerial Determination authorised under section 106AA, together with reasons for Determination, dated 8 September 1986. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act-Plans of Management and representations, together with comments by the Director- Christmas Island. Kakadu National Park. Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 98) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Have any satellite ground stations in Australia been involved in tracking, controlling, receiving data from, or otherwise communicating with, satellites of the United States Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP); if so what are the names of these ground stations and what are the formal designations and dates of launch of the DMSP satellites with which these stations have been involved. (2) Does Australia have access to DMSP satellite meteorological imagery/photographs for defence purposes. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The information sought is tabulated below: Station International Designation Launch Date Orroral Valley... 1970-50Aa. 6 June 1979 TRANET Smithfield and temporary tracking stations at Swanbourne Barracks Perth WA, and on Norfolk Island... 1985-21Ab. 13 March 1985 Notes- a. Emergency support only was provided on several occasions in 1980. b. This information refers to GEOSAT, which the DMSP has funded since October 1985, and is provided for the sake of completeness. (2) Australia has not sought access to DMSP meteorological imagery for defence purposes. The Bureau of Meteorology, however, makes occasional use of DMSP imagery for research purposes. GEOSAT is not a meteorological imaging satellite. (Question No. 1054) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) Have Northern Territory Conservation Commission (NTCC) rangers in Uluru National Park, as a result of the decision of the Uluru-Katatjuta Board of Management to set up an Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS) sponsored Uluru Park service, been required to leave the Commission to join the ANPWS or leave the Park. (2) Have all NTCC rangers declined to resign from the Commission, and as a result will be `kicked out' of the Uluru National Park. (3) Has the work which the NTCC, and its predecessor, the Reserves Board, put into the development of the park, and in particular, the excellent rapport which has been built up between the Conservation Commission rangers and local Aboriginal people, who are distressed at the prospect of the Park being managed by a Federal-based service remote from the reality of the region, been recognised by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. (4) Have the NTCC rangers who have declined to join the ANPWS been threatened with libel action by the ANPWS Park Superintendent if the rangers make public their more specific concerns regarding the future of the Park under the ANPWS; and if so, does the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment intend to investigate this matter further. (5) Would it be in the best interests of the Park, and particularly the Aboriginal people, if some alternative arrangement could be reached which would allow the Conservation Commission rangers to stay on to carry out the day-to-day management of the Park, as members of the NTCC. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. However, since the Northern Territory Government has refused to permit the Conservation Commission or its officers to participate in an Uluru Park Service, despite the fact that such an arrangement has operated successfully at Kakadu National Park since 1980, alternative arrangements have had to be made. (2) I do not know whether or not Conservation Commission rangers have resigned or declined to resign. This is a matter for the Conservation Commission. (3) The work is acknowledged. I have no doubt a good rapport with the local Aboriginal people was reached by some Conservation Commission rangers. I am also aware of instances where no such rapport was reached and that there are Commission rangers the Aboriginal people would not want in the park. It has been the expressed desire of the Aboriginal people that there should be a joint staffing arrangement involving the Conservation Commission and ANPWS along the lines of the arrangement which has worked successfully at Kakadu for some years. However, the Northern Territory Government found this proposal unacceptable. The Conservation Commission presented an alternative proposal for management, to the Uluru-Katatjuta Board of Management. At its meeting on 22-23 April, the Board discussed the proposal and was addressed by the Director of the Conservation Commission. The Board subsequently rejected the proposal unanimously. (4) I understand no such threats have been made and therefore there is nothing to investigate further. (5) An arrangement similar to that at Kakadu National Park and supported by the Aboriginal people, which would have seen Conservation Commission rangers continuing in the Park, was proposed. However, the Northern Territory Government has made it clear it would not participate in any such arrangement. (Question No. 1068) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: How many combat trained and ready infantry battalions can Australia put into the field and maintain in the field with its present defence manpower and resources. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As it is expensive in resource usage to maintain a high state of readiness, such a state needs to be related to the time needed to be able to react to a threat. Consequently, only those force elements needed to meet short-term threats in current strategic circumstances are placed on high states of readiness. Other elements required to provide follow up forces for any initial deployment and to retain long lead time skills are kept at appropriate lower readiness levels. There are six Regular Army infantry battalions. Two are currently maintained at high readiness levels as part of Army's Operational Deployment Force of a light scale brigade group and its associated logistic support group. The remaining four battalions are at lower readiness levels. In addition to the Regular Army infantry battalions, a further 16 are maintained within the Army Reserve component. These units form the nucleus of Army's expansion base. (Question No. 1227) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Is the Government of the United States of America instigating deportation proceedings against an Australian citizen, Mr Konrad Kalejs, in relation to his activities as a member of the Latvian Security Police during World War 2. (2) Are the facts set out in the ABC program Background Briefing of 11 May 1986, ``Nazis in Australia, Part 5, The Role of the Vatican'', completely or substantially correct as they relate to Konrad Kalejs. Was he employed from 1950-53 as an official at the Monegilla Migrant Camp. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The Government has established a Review of Material Relating to the Entry of Suspected War Criminals into Australia, the terms of reference of which were published in the press on 29 June 1986. The Review is examining aspects of the allegations in the ABC programs. (Question No. 1251) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) How many staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs are involved in activities solely relating to the International Year of Peace (IYP). (2) How many staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs are partially involved with activities relating to the IYP and what is the average number of hours spent on such activities per week per staff member. (3) Have any extra staff been appointed to or seconded to the Department of Foreign Affairs for purposes relating to IYP. (4) If there have been any extra appointments, will these persons remain with the Department of Foreign Affairs following the completion of the International Year of Peace. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The following staff are involved in activities solely relating to the International Year of Peace in the Department of Foreign Affairs: the IYP Director (Consultant) one Foreign Affairs Officer Grade 3 one Clerk Class 5 one Journalist Grade A1 (seconded from Promotion Australia) one Clerical Assistant Grade 5 IYP Development Officer, Foreign Affairs Office, Sydney IYP Development Officer, Foreign Affairs Office, Brisbane (2) The following staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs are partially involved with activities relating to International Year of Peace activities. The average number of hours per week spent on these activities is shown in each case: Special Disarmament Adviser: 1 hour Assistant Secretary, Peace and Disarmament Branch: 24 hours Head, Disarmament Multilateral Section: 15 hours Foreign Affairs Officer Grade 3, Disarmament Multilateral Section: 8 hours Foreign Affairs Trainee, Disarmament Multilateral Section: 15 hours Clerical Assistant Grade 4: 32 hours Steno-Secretary: 30 hours Senior Foreign Affairs Representative, Sydney: 2-4 hours Senior Foreign Affairs Representative, Melbourne: 3 hours Senior Foreign Affairs Representative, Brisbane: 7 hours Senior Foreign Affairs Representative, Adelaide: 3-4 hours Senior Foreign Affairs Representative, Perth: 12 hours Senior Foreign Affairs Representative, Hobart: 18 hours Secretary, Foreign Affairs Office, Sydney: 20 hours Secretary, Foreign Affairs Office, Melbourne: 1 1/2 hours Secretary, Foreign Affairs Office, Adelaide: 1 hour Secretary, Foreign Affairs Office, Brisbane: 4 hours NESA Trainee, Brisbane: 20 hours Two IYP Development Officers, Foreign Affairs Office, Adelaide: total 40 hours Four IYP Development Officers, Foreign Affairs Office, Perth: total 49 hours IYP Development Officer, Foreign Affairs Office, Hobart: 8 1/2 hours IYP Development Officer, Darwin: 24 hours The Head of the Department, the relevant Deputy Secretary and First Assistant Secretary and some staff overseas have also devoted attention intermittently to the IYP program, but the time involved would be too small to measure in terms of hours per week. (3) The following staff were appointed or seconded to the Department of Foreign Affairs for purposes relating to the IYP: IYP Director (Consultant) Clerk Class 11 (Department of Defence) September 1985-June 1986 Journalist Grade A1 (Promotion Australia) IYP Development Officers in State Offices: 2 full-time, 8 part-time (4) No. Senator Button —On 5 May 1986, Senator Elstob asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade, the following question, without notice: My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, relates to Australian exports. Would the Minister agree that for some time our wine sales to Japan have been dropping considerably and that this could be due to the fact that the Japanese consumer is confused with the similarity of the names Australia and Austria? Would it be sensible for our export products to be labelled in such a way that they could be easily recognised-for example, by depicting a red kangaroo, a koala or something similar which is truly Australian-and for only goods of a high standard to be allowed to use that emblem? The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In mid 1985 the Japanese wine market was disrupted by the discovery of the poisonous anti-freeze agent diethylene glycol (DEG) in some Austrian wines. The contamination issue had adverse implications for wine sales in Japan generally but the confusion which arose from unclear pronunciation of Austria on radio and TV and misspelling in newspapers further complicated the issue for Australian wine producers. The confusion between Australia and Austria together with Australia's involvement in the more heavily disrupted home consumption market has delayed recovery of Australian wine sales in Japan. The Senior Trade Commissioner in Japan has been working with the Australian industry to develop by advertising and other methods a distinctive image for Australian wine. The desirability of an export logo which easily identifies our wine as Australian has been considered by the Australian industry which to date has decided against the use of such a logo.