Tuesday, 23 September 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.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 respectfully showeth that . . . 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the abilities to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Zakharov (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with the mismanagement of the Victorian Otway forests, and we pray that: The constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant expressions of public concern, eg petitions, by the formation of a committee to represent public requests. by Senator Sanders (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December, 1984 as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material, (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and other related tests in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Giles (from 22 citizens) and Haines (from 113 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 25 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 43 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the Bill of rights will have the power to override and negate our Common Law within five years of its enactment. 2. Because the Bill of rights is based on an International Covenant, this will take the control of our country out of the hands of the people and their democratically elected representatives, giving the power to those outside Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray: 1. That the Senate rejects the Australian Bill of rights and all cognate Bills. 2. That as our representatives, you protect our Australian Heritage and Christian culture and values, both in the Education System, and through the Media. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 10 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 21 citizens). To the Honourable 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 onto 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 is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 46 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 rectifies 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 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizen of Australia, Andrew Christopher Hanley, respectfully showeth: That I offer the undermentioned personal explanations in relation to certain portions of an Answer to a Question without Notice which the Minister for Vete-rans' Affairs, Senator the Honourable A. T. Gietzelt, gave on 20 August 1986 in the Senate, concerning my involvement as a member of the Defence and Ex-Ser-vices Party and also as a candidate for election to a position in the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers' Association of N.S.W. (T.P.D.S.A.). I appreciate that the Minister's answer was given under parliamentary privilege. I deny that the persons concerned with the political organisation, the Defence and Ex Services Party, are or were involved in a political coup to take over the T.P.I. Association in order to use its extensive financial resources to contest the Senate Election. I point out that the Association is registered with the N.S.W. Corporate Affairs Commission as a Company limited by guarantee, is subject to the strict provisions of the Companies Code and Regulations and, in accordance with the requirements of section 280 of that Code has appointed a firm of auditors who were paid five thousand eight hundred dollars last year to safeguard the Company's funds. They are still the Company's auditors. I deny that I suggested that all those who are currently senators have let their party down. I also deny that I have ever said that, as a result of the Veterans' Entitlements Act the T.P.I. pension will be reduced from $190 to $71 per week. What I stated in a printed News Release in respect of the second part of the above statement was ``But the worse aspect of the new Act is the provision which creates two categories of veterans who are disabled to the same extent-those classified as T.P.I.s who are quite properly paid $190 per week and those who will in future be paid only $71 per week (both figures to be adjusted to the c.p.i.).'' That statement is absolutely correct. In response to the Minister's statement that I should be the last person to concern himself with veterans' pensions, as I am in receipt of a substantial pension from the Commonwealth Public Service, of which I was a senior member, and retired on 50 per cent of my salary, I respectfully point out that I paid contributions into the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund for more than forty-two years before receiving my entitlements from that fund. Those entitlements now preclude me from receiving the Service pension. I also respond by stating that it was my concern for disabled veterans who are financially worse off than myself that I formed the Defence and Ex-Services Party, and the overwhelming support particularly from veterans and war widows suggests that my concern is justified. I emphatically deny that I perpetrated lies anywhere, including in the T.P.I. election campaign and submit that there is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate such an allegation. And your petitioner humbly prays that the members of the Senate note my personal explanation. And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from one citizen). Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders, from 3,018 citizens objecting to any development proceeding in the north Lanyon area of the Australian Capital Territory: We the undersigned object to any development proceeding in the north Lanyon area. Petitions received. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the time for presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 be extended to 8 October 1986. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —I give notice that, on Thursday next, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the recent extension of the unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing by the Soviet Union until 1 January 1987, (b) notes, too, the recent vote in support of a moratorium on testing by the United States House of Representatives, (c) regrets the continued opposition of the Reagan Administration to a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, (d) commends the Federal Government's continued support for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and (e) calls upon the Government to press the Reagan Administration positively to respond to the Soviet moratorium before the end of the International Year of Peace. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer the Minister to his speech last night at the annual dinner of the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association at which he said: Manufacturers should be making their investment plans on the basis that the dollar will remain very close to its current levels. I ask the Minister: What is the basis for his prediction? Over what time frame does it extend? Senator BUTTON —In making that remark, I was trying to deal with some concern which exists in manufacturing circles that, if the dollar were to appreciate significantly in the next two or three years, then investment plans they have, predicated on a 62c dollar, would be affected detrimentally. I was not in any sense attempting to debate the value of the dollar as at today's level. I was concerned to make the point that in my view it is unlikely to appreciate to that extent. There are very sound reasons for saying that, I suspect, and ones which I think would be shared in this chamber and in the community at large. That is all I was saying. I made three comments together to the manufacturers. One was about the longer term value of the dollar and the second was about wage outcomes. I do not remember what the third was, but it was in the same genre as the other two. Basically, the other two factors related to inflation performance. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister said in his answer that the dollar is unlikely to appreciate, and then he used the expression `to that extent'. I seek clarification as to what the Minister means by `to that extent'. Is he simply saying that it will move in a very narrow band? What is the range of movement on which people ought to be planning? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney was there. He knows what I said and he knows the context in which I said it. Of course I was talking about a band in which the dollar is likely to move in the next few years. That is not a question of predicting that it will be 62c tomorrow, or 61c or 59c or 63c. Senator DEVLIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and follows on from a question asked yesterday by Senator Sibraa relating to the administration of the Australian War Memorial. The Minister was asked to comment on the sources of information on which he relied in coming to his assessment that an investigation into aspects of the Australian War Memorial's administration was required and whether the Returned Services League was involved. I ask again whether the Minister has any information regarding the RSL's involvement in the affair. Senator GIETZELT —I am sure the Senate will recall that representations were made to the Prime Minister for changed ministerial arrangements with respect to the Australian War Memorial following the 1984 election. The Australian War Memorial was transferred to my portfolio. It was not until later, in 1985, that an article appeared in the Canberra Times suggesting that the Returned Services League had set up a watchdog committee to oversee the Australian War Memorial in its function to perpetuate a memorial to those who had fallen in past wars. Earlier this year I received correspondence from a group of eminent persons asking me to meet with them to discuss some of the concerns they had about the Australian War Memorial. Early in May I met a group of persons, which included eminent people such as Mr Gullett, a former member of the Liberal Party of Australia and member of parliament, Sir William Dargie, a well known Australian, Mr Alec Hill, a distinguished soldier, historian and lecturer, and Brigadier Hammond, who put certain proposals to me about overseeing the work of the Australian War Memorial. When the article first appeared last year in the Canberra Times stating that such a group had been established, I was informed that the people involved were `dissidents', `malcontents' and other such descriptive words. It was with some trepidation that I met those people because I had been led to believe that they had nothing to contribute to the efficient management of the Australian War Memorial. I was pleasantly surprised to find, during my discussions with them, that they were an eminent group of men who were concerned about the functions of the Australian War Memorial. They put to me certain proposals which I found quite acceptable-that is, that they were prepared to act as an advisory group, that they did not want in any way to take away from the proper functions of the Council of the Australian War Memorial and that they were prepared to act in a co-operative way with the Council in the management of the War Memorial. It follows from that experience and from the experience to which I referred yesterday in response to another question, and from what I said in other places, that the combination of my concerns prompted me to raise matters with the Council of the Australian War Memorial. It is clear that there is some public concern, as there is now Government concern, about the functions of the Australian War Memorial. I found in this case that this group of men could contribute towards the effective functioning of the War Memorial. I hope that, in due course, the Council will be prepared to consider whether such persons should participate in an advisory capacity so that the proper functions of the War Memorial are carried out. Senator TOWNLEY —Does the Minister representing the Treasurer agree that the Treasurer's refusal last week to `disabuse' financial markets of their assumption of a floor under the Australian dollar is generally consistent with last night's confident prediction by Senator Button of the value of the currency remaining at about its present level? If so, why did the Treasurer in the House of Representatives yesterday seek to play down the significance of his earlier remarks by adopting the role of market observer? To clear up any confusion that exists, will the Minister say whether he agrees with Senator Button about the future value of the dollar? Senator WALSH —I am not exactly sure what Senator Button said. To the extent that I was paying attention to the first question and its answer, I do not think that Senator Button accepted Senator Chaney's interpretation of what he said either; so I find it difficult to pass any judgment on that. Senator Chaney —Would you like to see what he said? Senator WALSH —I am sure that, when I have time, it will make most interesting reading. I do not believe that there is any inconsistency. I am not sure what the Treasurer said yesterday in the House of Representatives. I do not believe that there is any inconsistency between the general tenor of Senator Button's remarks last night and the Treasurer's statements last week. As for what the Treasurer is alleged to have said yesterday, I have not seen those comments and I cannot pass judgment on that aspect either. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is there any justification for the claim that Family Court of Australia judges favour either men or women in their decisions? Is the Attorney-General aware that it is commonly said of the Court's decisions that `women get the custody, men get the property'? What is the Attorney-General's view of the recently released television advertising campaign by a group calling itself Fathers against Discrimination in Child Care, originating in Queensland, which claims that the Family Court tends to favour women in custody and access matters? Does the Minister accept the content of the group's advertisements which portray women as very insufficient parents? Can he advise the Senate that the advertisements will not contribute to any further or reverse bias? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Attorney-General that it is simply not true to say that Family Court decisions on children and financial proceedings tend to favour in any systematic way either men or women. There is no basis, of course, in the Family Law Act itself for decisions to be made in favour of litigants on the ground of their sex. In children disputes, section 64 (1) (a) of the Family Law Act provides that the Family Court shall regard the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. In financial disputes, the Family Court has a discretion to alter interests of a spouse in property, but must take into account a range of matters relating to contributions by each spouse to property, the welfare of the family, and the future need of each spouse. The Attorney- General is not aware of any common view that women get custody and men get property or any basis for such a view. Family Court studies have found that some 31 per cent of custody orders-that is, a final decision in a defended hearing by a judge-place all children in the custody of the father, in comparison with fathers obtaining custody of all children in only 18 per cent of cases which are settled by consent. In other words, we get a higher proportion of child custody awarded to the father where the court is making a decision than we do in cases where it is by consent. The Institute of Family Studies study called `The Economic Consequences of Marriages Breakdown in Australia' found that the custodial parent received a greater share of property and the parent who remains in the matrimonial home tends to receive a greater share than the parent who leaves. They are perhaps unsurprising conclusions, but there you are. The Attorney-General is aware of the television campaign commenced by Fathers against Discrimination in Child Care or FADIC, which is a rather unfortunate acronym. It is understood to be an overt attempt to suggest to the community at large that men have at least equal capacity with women to care for children. Media reports have suggested that the target of the campaign is the Family Court. The Family Court is not mentioned in any of the television advertisements shown to date. A final comment is simply this: It is unfortunate that the television campaign denigrates women as care givers. The point that men can be good care givers could be made in a less negative way, particularly given the $150,000 that seems to have been raised by FADIC to run this campaign. Senator SIDDONS —I have given the Minister for Finance some indication of the question which I now address to him. Can the Minister inform the Parliament which companies have received `naturalised' and `naturalising' status under the Government's new foreign investment guidelines? How many such applications have been rejected? Has the Government monitored all companies which have been granted naturalising status to ensure that they comply with their original commitments on naturalisation? What has the Government done about those companies which have not complied? Senator WALSH —Notice of this question was dropped into my office at some time during lunch time, I understand. It would take a considerable time to give an answer to it, especially, I would expect, to the first part. I do not know whether that would be a matter of days or weeks. However, I will see whether the Treasurer can supply an answer by the end of the week. Senator COLSTON —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport been drawn to an article in today's Courier-Mail in which the Queensland Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing, Mr Hinze, is reported to have said that Queenslanders would accept the need for toll roads if they were convinced that the public purse could not afford a needed facility? Does the Minister agree with Mr Hinze's statement in that article that all the blame for the lack of road funds lies with the Federal Government? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate will be aware that there has been a long-standing conflict of opinion between the Queensland National Party Government and the Commonwealth Government, whether it be the previous Government or this Government. Of course, every time there are any obvious deficiencies in the administration of Queensland, Canberra bashing or other sorts of scare tactics are resorted to. Senator Colston raised the suggestion that a toll road approach might be adopted by the Queensland Government because of an insufficiency of funds in respect of road construction in Queensland. I am sure honourable senators appreciate that this Government during its term has vastly increased the amount of money available for road construction, as indeed did the previous Government, on a national basis which involves all of the States. Queensland has been no exception. Having had my attention drawn to the article, I find it difficult to believe that Mr Hinze would suggest that too much money has been spent on the Bruce Highway in Queensland. Everybody in Queensland recognises the importance of that important road link. Queenslanders should be aware that the Commonwealth is currently contributing 60 per cent of the total funds spent on road construction in Queensland. That represents an above average contribution by the Commonwealth to such road construction. So if there are deficiencies in road construction, the fault lies not with the Commonwealth Government but rather with either the maladministration or insufficient administration of funding by the Queensland Government. Of course, we would like to see more and more money spent on roads throughout Australia. That is where we part ways with those who advocate that there should be cutbacks in public sector spending. The proper development of a country requires that sufficient road construction take place. Transport is a very important element in an efficient society. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth is in any way to blame for deficiencies in road construction in Queensland. Senator MESSNER —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of the very critical joint submission to the Treasurer from the Western Australian Government, employers and unions on the fringe benefits tax? Does the Minister agree with the submission which states that the imposition of the fringe benefits tax on employers will significantly reduce retained earnings available for investment; secondly, that economic growth in Western Australia will suffer as a result of the tax, and, thirdly, that compliance costs in the first year of operation could well exceed revenue? Will the Treasurer grant Premier Burke's request for urgent talks on the State's submission? Senator WALSH —The last part of the question is obviously a matter for the Treasurer to determine, and no doubt he will do so. Senator Messner referred to a joint submission which has been described in the Press as a joint submission from Western Australian employees-that is, the Trades and Labour Council-the Western Australian Government and Western Australian employers. But I understand that that is not correct in that the submission has been explicitly dis- owned by the Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia. I just wanted to get that fact straight. I find the submission annoying but not at all surprising. I remember very clearly that three years ago, in 1983, Ministers in that same Government in Western Australia went in to bat for tax evaders by vigorously opposing the prescribed payments system and forecasting the same sort of economic doom and gloom pursuant to its application as is being forecast now. The real reason for the opposition to the prescribed payments system in 1983 was that groups, particularly in the building and transport industries, had become accustomed to evading income tax and they resented any attempt by a government to prevent their continuing to evade income tax. Exactly the same motive lies behind the present submission which is being supported-as I have said, I find this annoying but not surprising-by some members of the Western Australian Government. However, annoying though it may be that some members of the Western Australian Government are suckers for sob stories from habitual tax evaders who want to continue their tax evading habits-- Senator Messner —`Suckers', did you say? Senator WALSH —Yes, I said `suckers'. However, I am extremely grateful that we have to deal with that Government instead of a Liberal Party government in Western Australia. All the world should know by now that the Liberal Party in Western Australia was riddled with people who not only were sympathetic to tax evasion but also were up to their ears in tax evasion. That is evidenced by the fact that, among other things, half the members of the Liberal Party finance committee in the early 1980s were ultimately shown, following the publication of the McCabe-Lafranchi report, to have been directly involved in sinking companies to the bottom of the harbour to evade taxation. So, annoying though this high profile campaign of sympathy for tax evaders which is being orchestrated by the present Western Australian Government might be, that Government is infinitely better than any alternative government would be. Senator CHILDS —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health inform the Senate whether the Government is able to maintain its commitment of funds to family planning? Senator GRIMES —The Government is committed to family planning, particularly when pressured by people such as my colleague Senator Ryan. This year, despite economic difficulties, we have not only maintained the commitment we have made in the past but increased it. This year $8.9m of Commonwealth funding will go into family planning services and, of that, $1m is new money for which disadvantaged groups and groups at high risk will have priority. New services will be set up in many areas, particularly at Penrith in New South Wales, Toowoomba in Queensland, Fremantle in Western Australia, Devonport in Tasmania, and some isolated areas. My colleague the Minister for Health will be giving full details of these projects in the near future, but rumours that the Government is to drop its commitment to family planning are quite wrong. I point out that in fact we have increased our assistance this year, as we have in previous years. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer to the $45m-or 40 per cent-mistake made by the Department of Defence in its fringe benefits tax provision for this year, revealed at the Senate Estimates Committee hearing, and the admission by departmental officers that the remaining provision is still rubbery and that `what is and what is not a fringe benefit in the Defence context is anything but clear'. In view of the repeated mistakes being made by the Government and particularly by the Treasurer-- Senator Walters —Cheating Keating. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That is the chap; and because of the confusing nature of the fringe benefits tax and in response to community outrage-which is now supported by Western Australian employers, unions and the State Labor Government-will the Federal Government act immediately either to abandon or to make significant changes to this destructive new tax before it completely undermines the economy? Senator WALSH —I expect to read in the Daily Telegraph before long a highly informative and unbiased article on this subject written by Steve Martin, or Steve Baume, or Patrick Martin, or Martin Baume, or whatever his name is-one of the various aliases he adopts without disclosing it-- Senator Button —Martin Cash? Senator WALSH —Martin Cash was a bushranger who exposed himself to physical dangers. Senator Baume has made his money in ways that have some similarity but which do not actually expose him to any physical dangers. I guess that makes Martin Cash a more admirable character in some ways. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the Minister is getting very close to transgressing standing order 418, and I ask him to exercise his mind carefully in keeping his remarks within that standing order. Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: I ask the Minister to withdraw the reference he made at the point at which you, too, started to bridle. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to withdraw his remarks. There was a reflection upon an honourable senator. Senator WALSH —I am not sure what it is I am supposed to withdraw, Mr President, but I am happy to withdraw anything you ask me to. As to the reference to the Department of Defence, in a number of areas-and as Minister for Finance I have become aware of this-there is difficulty in sorting out numbers about a large number of things, and that applies particularly to the Department of Defence. I am not surprised that there have been some problems in the Department of Defence in sorting out its liabilities to fringe benefits tax. I shall see what the Treasurer and/or the Minister for Defence have to say about the matter. Senator VALLENTINE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of the article `Maritime Strategy from the Deckplates' by Vice-Admiral Henry C. Mustin in the September edition of the United States Naval Proceedings, which states: The maritime strategy serves as the blueprint for the development of new tactics and programs required to replace the passive convoy escort posture-in vogue in the late 1970s-with the offensive, forward strategy which is needed to meet today's threat. Will the Minister explain to the Senate whether he still stands by the answer he gave to a question by Senator Sanders on 20 February this year? In his answer he stated that he did not accept Senator Sanders's characterisation of Admiral Watkins's proposal as amounting to a strategy, yet it is evident from this latest article that the maritime strategy is in fact currently being pursued in the Pacific as an offensive, forward strategy. Is the Minister still prepared to reiterate that the role of the North West Cape has not changed when it is quite evident, as Vice-Admiral Mustin says, that the United States strategy has changed from being passive to offensive? The PRESIDENT —Order! Before the Minister answers the question, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the amount of detailed information that is being given in a number of questions. I ask honourable senators to ask questions and not give information. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have a confession to make, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Order! Publicly or privately? Senator GARETH EVANS —Publicly. I have nothing to hide. Before Senator Vallentine asked her question, I had never heard of Vice-Admiral Henry C. Mustin and I am afraid I was not familiar with his article `Maritime Strategy from the Deckplates'. However, armed as I now am with that reference, I will assiduously chase that reference, discuss it with the Minister for Defence and see what answer I can offer. Senator DURACK —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Government giving consideration to the Gutman report on taxation of the gold mining industry? How soon is the Government likely to make a decision in relation to the matters covered by that report? Will the Government make the report public prior to any decision it makes so that it may have the benefit of public comment on the report before it does so? Finally, has the Government already made the report available to any members of its back bench? Senator WALSH —As to some of those questions, I have no idea whether the report has been made available-for example, to members of the back bench. I will ask the Treasurer and see whether he feels like giving a reply. Some of the questions I regard as impertinent-that is, whether the Government has considered it, what is it going to do and so on. I regard them as impertinent and not deserving of an answer. The Government will consider this report and make its decision on the matter, as it does on other matters. I am, however, aware of the fact that Mr Howard said, and was widely reported as saying in Western Australia, I think on 9 August 1984, that there ought to be a tax on gold. I suppose that is a matter the Government should bear in mind as well in forming its opinions. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question of the Minister: In view of his arrogant attitude to questions, I ask again: Will the Government make the report public prior to any decision it makes on the report? Senator WALSH —That is a matter for the Treasurer to determine. Senator COOK —Is the Minister representing the Special Minister of State aware of provisions in the Electoral Act that require full disclosure above a certain level of political donations for election campaigns? Has the Minister seen weekend reports in various Western Australian newspapers alleging that the well-known right winger, Mr Ric New, is withholding his traditional donation of a quarter of a million dollars until the Liberal Party in Western Australia dumps its secretary and last surviving member of the Collins Street push, Mr Chilla Porter? In particular, I ask whether the Minister has seen Saturday's front page headline of the Western Mail `Sack Porter or else threat to Libs', under which it is reported: Mr New confirmed that he was withholding a big donation until Mr Porter was moved. Asked if the donation was $250,000, he said-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the honourable senator's attention to the detailed information being given in the question. Senator Chaney —I wish to raise a point of order. Clearly this question has nothing to do with any matter which is within any Minister's competence. In taking that point of order I take the point that Mr New has denied that report and, therefore, the question is outside any Minister's area of concern or professional competence and ought not to be permitted. It is also based on a report which has been denied; therefore the question should be ruled out of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I will hear the question out before I rule on the point of order, but I draw Senator Cook's attention to the amount of detailed information he is giving in the question. I suggest he cut out the detailed information as much as possible and come to the point of the question. Senator COOK —Thank you, Mr President, I will. The report stated: Asked if the donation was $250,000, he said: `It would cost us that much money, I suppose'. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to ask his question or I will have to ask him to resume his seat. Senator COOK —Thank you, Mr President; I will. Given that an examination of the compulsory returns from political parties since the 1984 Federal election does not disclose any donations from Mr New or his company, Midland Brick Co. Pty Ltd, to the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party of Australia, would the Minister check to see that those returns have been properly filed and donations properly disclosed? Senator GARETH EVANS —I suppose it is not surprising that it should cost $250,000 to buy a State Secretary of the Liberal Party in Western Australia, given that it appears to cost $400,000 to buy a Queensland Premier. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw that remark. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will withdraw at your request, Mr President. Senator Chaney —I ask for an unqualified withdrawal. The PRESIDENT —I have asked the Minister to withdraw and, as I understand it, he has withdrawn that remark. Has the Minister withdrawn? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, of course. On the basis of the Press reports to which Senator Cook has referred, there would appear to be grounds for the inference that there have been substantial undisclosed donations in the past by the gentleman in question. Accordingly, as Senator Cook requests, I will refer the matter to the Special Minister of State for an appropriate investigation. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the decision taken by the dominant Socialist Left faction in Tasmania at the weekend to place a left winger, John Devereux, at the head of the Australian Labor Party Senate ticket for the next election, followed by Senator Grimes and Senator Tate, can the Minister state whether both Senators Grimes and Tate will enjoy the benefits of National Executive intervention? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's question is outside the realm of the Minister's responsibilities to this Parliament. I will hear the rest of the question, but to date the honourable senator is out of order. Senator NEWMAN —Can the Minister state whether the Government is prepared to make an ambassadorial appointment available to one of the honourable senators in order to accommodate the left wing? The PRESIDENT —Order! The first part of the question is out of order. I will allow the Minister to respond to the second portion if he so desires. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, the first part of the question is out of order, as you have ruled. It is not a matter within my ministerial responsibility. This Government has not been in the habit of showering ambassadorial largesse on its members. If Senator Newman does not lift her game in Question Time I will certainly be prepared to suggest to the Government that it make her the consular officer in somewhere such as Paraguay. Senator BLACK —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to a transcript of an interview with the Premier of Queensland conducted by Paul Ransley on the Willesee program last night? If so, does the Minister consider that answers given by the Premier to questions regarding the loan of $145,000 to a National Party of Australia employee constitute a refusal by the Premier to reply to the Minister's correspondence seeking information in regard to Commonwealth funds which may have been misappropriated in the matter? If he does believe that the Premier's comments constitute a refusal to reply, what action will the Minister now take? Senator WALSH —Mr Premier-- Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator WALSH —I withdraw and I apologise as well. I have read the transcript of that interview between Paul Ransley and the Premier of Queensland and I found, as I have often found, that it is difficult, either when listening to the Premier or when reading a verbatim transcript of what he has said, to understand what he has been saying or, indeed, whether he has been saying anything at all. Therefore, with that fairly important caveat, it does appear to me that the Premier is saying that he will refuse to supply the information which has been sought by the Commonwealth, or, I suppose more directly, by me. The information I sought is a comprehensive list of loans made over the last three years which are sourced partly or entirely from natural disaster relief funds, and for the identification within that list of the individual loans on which the recommendations of the Rural Reconstruction Board and/or the Agricultural Bank of Queensland have been overturned by the Minister. Indeed, it is very necessary to obtain that information in order to clarify the facts, because we have had a large number of contradictions about the facts of this matter. For example, originally the Premier, according to Mr Turner, knew nothing about the loan to Mr Behan and had not spoken to Mr Behan about it. According to Mr Behan he had spoken to the Premier about it. A little bit later, according to Mr Turner, the Premier might have spoken to Mr Behan about it. According to Mr Behan, at no stage had he given any undertaking that the property would be sold, whereas according to Mr Turner such an undertaking or understanding had been given. A little bit later down the track, Mr Menzel, the member for Mulgrave, was reported as saying that he had had hundreds of recommendations from the Rural Reconstruction Board overturned by the Minister-and he identified the Minister as Mr Turner-whereas Mr Turner claimed that this was the only occasion on which he had overturned a recommendation of the Rural Reconstruction Board. So it is clear that not everybody in Queensland is telling the truth about this matter and the Commonwealth has a clear obligation to establish who is telling the truth and who is not. The supply of that list, as requested, will clear up most of, if not all, those contradictions and will allow the Commonwealth to determine who has and who has not been telling the truth. The last part of the question, I think, asked what action I will take if the Queensland Government refuses to supply the list. Having said that it is extremely difficult to determine from the transcript of the Ransley interview what the Premier was saying, I intend to wait, for a couple of weeks anyway, to see whether the Queensland Government supplies the information as requested. If the Government refuses to supply that information, I think it is a matter which will have to be further considered by the Commonwealth Government. There are two possible courses of action which are apparent to me at this stage, the first being that, prior to any further natural disaster relief arrangements funds being made available to Queensland, the Commonwealth could require, as a condition of making funds available, that the background information to individual loans and the recommendations of the Rural Reconstruction Board and so on be supplied to the Commonwealth. I think the facts on the record already amply justify that course of action. The Commonwealth Government, and I in particular as Minister for Finance in that Government, has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Australia to ensure that taxpayers' money is not misused in the way that it evidently has been misused in Queensland. The other and much more draconian measure which I would be reluctant to re- commend to the Cabinet is that funding for Queensland be terminated forthwith unless the complete information from past loans has been provided. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Will the Minister agree that tobacco is now clearly, on the evidence, the major killer among the drugs of abuse in Australia and, for that matter, the world? In that light, has the Government considered World Health Organisation statements last week which assess passive inhalation of cigarette smoke as a major and increasing health hazard? Will the Government now legislate for an absolute prohibition of smoking in passenger aircraft, since the present division of the smoking and non-smoking areas does not protect the non-smoker? Will the Government immediately begin assessing other areas of public risk from tobacco smoke with the aim of prohibiting smoking in such areas as soon as possible? Senator GRIMES —I am a convert in this area. We have to watch out for converts. The Government is aware of the World Health Organisation statements last week on passive smoking and its evil effects. In June this year the National Health and Medical Research Council endorsed the WHO statement and released a report called `Effects of passive smoking', which recommended that certain policies be adopted by the States and Territories to protect the health of non-smokers. In most cases the responsibility lies with the State or Territorial governments. The responsibility for banning smoking in aircraft rests with the Minister for Aviation. It is my understanding that the Minister for Health has approached the Minister for Aviation. This would not be an unusual set of circumstances. In many European airlines smoking is banned on flights of less than one hour's duration. Earlier this year Mr Morris, the Minister for Aviation, called upon domestic airlines voluntarily to introduce non-smoking flights, but the Government has no intention at the moment of legislating in this area. Senator Button and Senator Elstob will undoubtedly be grateful for that. Action is being taken within the Australian Public Service, where the Government has responsibility and where new guidelines on smoking in the work place have been introduced with the intention of eventually making the work place smoke free. I agree with the general comments from Senator Mason about smoking. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Health and the Minister for Aviation to see whether they want to add anything to the reply I have given. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Community Services aware that the Bassendean City Council in Perth has issued an eviction notice affecting children with intellectual disabilities living in a group home? Is it a fact that a similar eviction notice is being planned for another house in the same area? What avenues are open to the Commonwealth in seeking to overcome such actions, which appear to be based on discriminatory attitudes? Senator GRIMES —I have avoided getting into the controversy surrounding the actions of Bassendean City Council because I had hoped that this matter could have been settled amicably by arrangements in the way that all other similar difficulties have been settled in Australia in the past. It is not uncommon when group homes for intellectually disabled people are going to be established for neighbours to get agitated and sometimes protest about the establishment of such a home. However, in every case that I know of, by talking together, by consultation between the group setting up the home and people in the neighbourhood, the matter has been settled. In the cases I am personally involved with, those neighbours who were worried and did protest became active supporters and are very supportive of group homes. In the case of Bassendean that, unfortunately, has not happened. As Senator Zakharov said, last night the Council announced that it would evict five intellectually disabled children from one home and that it intends to proceed similarly in relation to another. This is most unfortunate, and I understand that the State Minister for the Environment in Western Australia, Mr Pearce, has had some fairly harsh things to say today about it, particularly as the State Government was intending, and still intends, to amend legislation in the Western Australian Parliament to bring the group home completely within the law. There have been some difficulties about the establishment of the home. Unfortunately, there seems to be an element on the Bassendean Council which is very opposed to this sort of enlightened step which has been taken by the Slow Learning Children's Group of Western Australia (Inc.), which is attempting to get children such as these out of large institutions and into group homes and a more normal atmosphere. For instance, one of the councillors who claims some expertise in the area has suggested that the Government should find more pleasant, 100-hectare blocks to house all intellectually handicapped people, apparently out of sight and sound of the rest of the community. Someone has convinced the Mayor that Bassendean is in danger of becoming the dumping ground for institutions of this type. He has said that 50 per cent of intellectually disabled people in Western Australia are in Bassendean. This is, of course, nonsense. Group homes and people with this form of disability are spread throughout the community. I still have some hope that sanity will prevail, particularly in light of the fact that all the petitions that have been collected in the area have shown that some thousands of people are in favour of the establishment of these homes and that only 22 people have been willing to sign a petition against them. However, I suppose we will always have centres of resistance of this type. It is a pity, in particular, because it is not only the people with intellectual disability but also the community itself who gain from the establishment of such homes. The community becomes more tolerant and more knowledgeable about the sorts of difficulties facing the parents and children in such circumstances, and we all benefit. As I said, I am still hopeful that it will be settled sensibly. It is a pity that it has gone on in the way it has in the Press in Western Australia. It is a pity that the Council has been so stubborn about this, but I dare say that one way or another it will be settled. I just hope it is settled amicably and that the situation will not arise in which the Western Australian Government will have to overcome this difficulty by punitive legislation. The Commonwealth does not intend to do anything directly. Suggestions have been made in the Western Australian Press that we should withdraw Commonwealth funds from Bassendean, and this sort of thing. I do not believe the good citizens of Bassendean should be penalised because of the idiocy of their Council. I think the best thing to do is to change the Council as soon as possible. Senator SHORT —I preface my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer by referring to the Treasurer's address to the Australian Labor Party National Conference in Hobart on 10 July 1986 in response to a motion from the Socialist Left calling on the Government to defend the value of the Australian dollar through Reserve Bank of Australia intervention. I ask the Minister whether he recalls that in that address the Treasurer said: Do you understand what it means to try and defend a rate . . . it means that the Government buys Australian dollars when speculators dump them . . . and what that means is that the Reserve Bank sucks in Australian dollars off the Australian market to pay for them . . . you clean the Australian money supply out and you shove interest rates up and you bring on a recession . . . that's what it means defending a rate that the rest of the world won't pay. Does the Minister also recall that on page 34 of Statement 2 of 1986 Budget Paper No. 1 there is reference to Reserve Bank intervention in the foreign exchange market and that on pages 15 and 16-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's question is getting far too long. I have already drawn attention to this aspect at Question Time. If these questions continue I shall have to ask honourable senators to sit down and reframe them. I call Senator Short. Senator SHORT —Thank you, Mr President. The 1986 annual report of the Reserve Bank refers also to the operations that have been taken in the foreign exchange market by the Reserve Bank. I ask the Minister: In view of the Treasurer's statement last week specifically referring to the Reserve Bank's market interventions in recent weeks, why is the Reserve Bank giving a no-lose opportunity to currency speculators by supporting the Australian dollar on the foreign exchange market? How does the Minister reconcile the Treasurer's statement with his subsequent statements and with actual events on the foreign exchange market? The PRESIDENT —Order! Again I ask honourable senators to heed my remarks about shortening their questions, or I will direct that they be placed on the Notice Paper. Senator WALSH —I think that this is the fourth question that has been asked today about the exchange rate. I was reluctant until now to come to this conclusion but it is now perfectly clear that this is an orchestrated campaign by the Opposition to try to touch off a run on the dollar. In other words, members of the Opposition are doing exactly what their lamented former leader did in February 1983 when he was forecasting that, if Labor got into government, there would be a major devaluation of the dollar. That became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Opposition hopes that, by asking these puerile questions, it will be able to set off a run on the dollar again. I realise that it must be extremely frustrating to the Opposition, given its incompetent leadership and its lacklustre front bench, to see that the Budget strategy is working and that the dollar has stabilised in the low 60s-that is, compared with the United States dollar-exactly where the Budget forecast it would stabilise. It is extremely frustrating because members of the Opposition are fundamentally economic saboteurs. There is the example of Mr Lightfoot, a member of the Legislative Assembly in Western Australia, who wrote to George Shultz saying: `Please keep subsidising the exports of American agricultural products to the Soviet Union. Please keep paying for the Afghanistan war by subsidising the export of United States farm products to the Soviet Union because that will impose even greater hardship on Australian farmers, undermine our current account and, I hope, lead to the demise of the present Federal Government in Australia'. In other words, these people will stop at nothing to satisfy their power lust. Lacking in talent, they have nothing but power lust. There is nothing they will not do if they think it will help to satisfy that. I note, in an aside, that the undistinguished member for Murchison-Eyre, Mr Lightfoot, looks as though he is facing prosecution for starving 300 sheep at Wanneroo. I would have expected a former Treasury officer, as Senator Short is, to understand the difference between attempting to defend an exchange rate which is basically indefensible and which is grossly misaligned with market realities-the circumstances to which the Treasurer referred in Hobart-and intervention in the market-place in a smoothing way to eliminate unjustifiable fluctuations on a daily or weekly basis. Intervening to eliminate such fluctuations is a completely different exercise from attempting to hold an exchange rate level which is fundamentally indefensible, particularly if there is anything but the old fixed exchange rate system. Senator Button —If you do it to keep inflation down, like the last Government did, without success. Senator WALSH —I was just about to come to that. Prior to the floating of the dollar in 1983, we had a modification of the fixed exchange rate system, which was commonly known as the crawling peg. Eventually, that became unworkable as well. To compensate for the fact that the Liberal-National Party Government was bereft of any workable wages policy-the Opposition still is-John Howard, the Treasurer, deliberately maintained an overvalued dollar during the late 1970s and early 1980s in an attempt to control inflation. That Government ultimately failed even to do that, thereby doing enormous damage to the international competitiveness of Australian industry, the hangover of which persists to this day. Senator SHORT —I ask a supplementary question. Can I take it from the Minister's answer that the Government is not supporting the Australian dollar through the Reserve Bank? Senator WALSH —I have nothing to add to what I have already said. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs seen reports in today's Press that Senator Hill, the chairman of the Opposition's foreign affairs committee, has issued a statement at the United Nations in New York in support of sanctions against South Africa? Is Senator Hill's statement in accord with the Government's policy and does the Minister welcome this new bipartisan approach on the issue of sanctions as foreshadowed by Senator Hill? Senator GARETH EVANS —We certainly welcome Senator Hill's statement made in New York supporting sanctions and expressing the opinion that the Western world is coming to the view that economic pressure on South Africa can have the effect of influencing change and should be tried. The pity of it is that that does not at the moment reflect, of course, the Opposition view-only the view, so far anyway, of Senator Hill as chairman of the Opposition's foreign affairs committee. The stating of that view and the clear-headed and frank way in which it was expressed by Senator Hill really do amount to a devastating indictment of the moral and intellectual shambles into which Opposition policy on South Africa has fallen. It is a clear expression of how hopelessly out of date with contemporary currents in world opinion that official Opposition policy now is. The pity of it is that it seems to be the case that Senator Hill has, only after great struggle, arrived at a view which the Government, of course, reached a great time ago and that we have been pointing the way to with other countries since August last year with our participation in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and other relevant international forums. It should also be said that as much as I admire the courageous stance that Senator Hill has taken, it does display all those familiar traits of me-tooism which has been so often the only alternative to total vacuity in the Opposition's foreign policy. I am referring, of course, to the fact that it is only with the assistance of the very strong congressional groundswell in the United States of America behind the sanctions policy in the form of current legislation that Senator Hill has felt able to reach the conclusions that he has, and his statement is very much reinforced by the views he has found expressed in the United States by Senator Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. It should be noted, of course, that the ideas expressed by Senator Lugar and senior US congressmen are absolutely identical with the views that have been expressed for so long by this Government on this policy and in particular, and very succinctly, by Mr Hayden when he said that our aim is to bring South Africa not to its knees but to its senses. That is the essence of our policy and that is, I am delighted to see, the opinion that is now gaining ground in such a significant quarter within the Opposition parties. Let me conclude simply by saying this: I think it would be of the greatest benefit to Australia if we could arrange for the Opposition as a whole to take a long trip in search of the enlightenment now found by Senator Hill so that our debates on foreign policy in the future in relation to South Africa and elsewhere could reflect, as Senator Hill's contribution now does, some knowledge of the real world instead of the infantile obsession with great and powerful friends and the infatuation with the macho posturings and, all too often, racist posturings of the hard Right-the New Right-which are the current characteristics of Opposition foreign policy. Senator ALSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I ask whether the Minister, as reported in last weekend's National Times on Sunday, in a letter to Mr Charles Copeman of Peko-Wallsend Ltd on 8 September, said, inter alia: It is my view that . . . it would be premature to pursue the World Heritage listing of Kakadu stage 2 until relevant questions about mineral activity in the Kakadu region have been addressed by the Commonwealth. Less than two weeks later, did the Minister announce that all mining would be excluded from stages 1 and 2 and that the Government had agreed to nominate stage 2 for the World Heritage List? I ask: What happened during the intervening period to change the Minister's mind? Were there any other new facts or circumstances that emerged or was it simply another example of craven capitulation to perceived electoral advantage? Senator GARETH EVANS —It was not craven capitulation; it was courageous capitulation. It was informed not only by political considerations, although it was evident that an emotional groundswell was developing about Kakadu stages 1 and 2, which any government would properly take into account; there was also perfectly rational consideration, which I have explained publicly on the numerous occasions that I have referred to this issue in recent days. We did some close analysis of the available information about the respective and comparative prospectivity of the areas of the existing national park and that of stage 3 and we formed the view, which I have articulated often enough publicly in the last week, that while the existing national park was very highly prospective for uranium-a commodity we are not in the business of further developing for familiar reasons-it is not at all highly prospective for gold, platinum and the other minerals that would give rise to a difficult policy dilemma for this Government, anxious as it is to maximise on export returns but at the same time not to wreak any devastation on a beautiful and important part of our natural and cultural heritage. In the time frame to which Senator Alston refers, we were able to focus on those issues, then having been brought to light publicly, and we made a decision which, as I have said, was informed not only by a consideration of the obvious concern that all Australians feel about this aspect of our national heritage but also by a perfectly rational assessment of what our longer term economic, mining and resource priorities ought to be. Senator ALSTON —I ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister's concession that there was an element of political consideration in the decision and I therefore ask him: What do we now make of his statement at a Press conference that he had not been rolled on the issue and that the Government would never be so vulgar as to make a mere political decision that was not underpinned by rationality? Senator GARETH EVANS —I know that that is laborious enough to get Senator Alston a few points at the Melbourne Bar, but it is a point that I have just acknowledged. It was not a mere acknowledgment of the political considerations, evident though they were; it was based on a number of other considerations which I have done my best to retail again here today. Senator BUTTON —Yesterday Senator Puplick asked me a question in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Science and relating to patents. I have an answer which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- The Technology Information Branch of the Australian Patent Office was established in March 1984. One of its functions was to test whether information derivable from world-wide patent documentation could be made more accessible and more useful to industry. Since then, the Technology Information Branch has succeeded in demonstrating a number of ways in which patent information can be used more effectively and that a demand exists in industry. The Industrial Property Advisory Committee (IPAC), in its report ``patent information for smaller Australian enterprises'', suggested that patent information would be more useful to Australian industry-particularly to smaller enterprises-if it were packaged with other information (legal, commercial and financial) and available from central points such as multiplier agencies or government-operated development centres. I believe this suggestion to be sensible and, in view of the necessity of reducing Commonwealth expenditure, the Government decided that the Technology Information Function of the Australian Patent Office would cease. Income derived from that function last financial year was of the order of $62,000. As IPAC recognised, the basic information is already publicly available, either on-line from various data-bases or from the Patent Office, although some expertise is needed to make full use of it. The Patent Office will, of course, continue to make its collection of patent documents available to the public. Although the office will no longer perform searches on behalf of clients, the decision to abolish the function does not mean that information useful to industry is no longer available. A number of sources, such as patent attorneys, libraries and private information brokers, provide information, process and interpret it to one degree or another, and will no doubt continue to do this. Indeed IPAC's suggestion and the government's decision may bring new sources into the field. The PRESIDENT —Order! In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present a report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit dated 23 September 1986. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade, I present a report on certain aspects of Australia's manufacturing industry revitalisation, dated September 1986. I seek leave to move a motion relating to the report. Leave granted. Senator CHILDS —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That the Senate do now adjourn. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before the Senate adjourns I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee D will meet in Committee room No. 6, Estimates Committee E will meet in the Senate Chamber and Estimates Committee F will meet in Committee rooms Nos 1 and 2. Prior to the sitting of the committees the bells will be rung for three minutes. Senate adjourned at 3.11 p.m. The following paper was tabled: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act-Declaration under sub-section 12 (1) by the Minister in relation to significant Aboriginal objects, together with explanatory statement, dated 29 August 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 969) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) What is the determined policy of the Department of Treasury in relation to de facto relationships. (2) How is this policy implemented in departmental assessment of tax returns. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Treasury policy in relation to de facto relationships extends only to matters necessary for the administration of the Department. In that context, the policy is consistent with the guidelines issued by the Public Service Board. The Australian Taxation Office, which is responsible to the Commissioner of Taxation, administers the taxation law. (2) The Income Tax Assessment Act treats de facto relationships on the same basis as legal marriages in determining entitlement to certain income tax rebates and the amount of Medicare levy payable. In the 1984-85 Budget the Government announced its decision to extend entitlement to the dependant spouse rebate to include people living in de facto relationships. The concessional rebate provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act were amended to give effect to this decision. Recognition of the de facto relationship for the purposes of the spouse rebate flowed through to the other dependants rebates, eg the rebate for dependent parents, the concessional expenditure rebate (replaced from 1 July 1985 by the medical expenses rebate) and the zone and overseas forces rebate. In addition, more recent income tax rebates which take account of a spouse, such as the pensioner and beneficiary rebates, also recognise a de facto relationship. In addition to the changes so far made to the Income Tax Assessment Act to treat de facto relationships on the same basis as legal ones, the Act is being reviewed to ensure it complies with the Sex Discrimination Act. (Question No. 1022) Senator Vanstone asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 15 April 1986: (1) What is the membership of the National Task Force, when was each member appointed and when has the Task Force met with respect to the Government's Priority One Program and in particular the Australian Traineeship System. (2) What is the membership of the Commonwealth-State Traineeship Co-ordinating Group, when was each member appointed and when has the group met. (3) What is the membership of each of the National Industry Working Groups, when was each member appointed and when have the groups met. (4) What is the membership of each State Task Force, when was each member appointed and when have the Task Forces met. (5) What is the membership of each State based Industry Working Group, when was each member appointed and when have the groups met. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) National Task Force on the Australian Traineeship System. Chairman, Mr George Polites, AC, CMG, MBE. Deputy Chairman, Mr Cliff Dolan, AO. Members, Mr J. W. R. Pratt, Mr J. Maher, Mr M. Boland, Ms J. Huie, Ms J. Owen, Mr L. Fricker, Mr A. Abrahart, Mr M. Jenkins, Mr P. Kirby, Mr A. Kaspura. Members were appointed on 6 February 1986 with the exception of Mr A. Kaspura who was appointed on 8 June 1986. Meeting dates 1986: 19 February, 7 March, 15 April, 4 June, 16 July and 18 August. (2) Commonwealth/State Traineeship Consultative Group. The Commonwealth/State Traineeship Consultative Group first met on 29 August 1985. Commonwealth and State Governments agreed, however, that its functions should be subsumed by an existing body, the Commonwealth/State Training Advisory Committee (COSTAC), established in 1984 to exchange information about the administration of systems of vocational training and to inquire into and report to the Conference of Commonwealth and State Labour Ministers on such training matters as are referred to it. The membership of COSTAC is as follows: Chairman, Deputy Secretary, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Members, Senior representative from each State and Territory industrial and commercial training authority or its equivalent, each State and Territory technical education authority, the Commonwealth Department of Education, the Technical and Further Education (TAFE) Council, the National Training Council (now replaced by the (Interim) Australian Council for Employment and Training), the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Other State/Task Force nominees attend as appropriate. COSTAC has met to discuss traineeships on the following dates 1985: 20 November. 1986: 25 February, 3 June and 14 July. (3) National Industry Working Groups. TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY WORKING GROUP Members Representatives Chairman Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Mr C. O'Connell Southern Pacific Hotel Corporation Mr G. Wackett Australian Pacific Tours Mr B. Williams Australian Hotels Association Mr C. Walker Beaufort International Hotel Mr W. Bordacs Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees' Union of Australia Mr M. Boland Queensland Tourism Industry Working Group Mr R. McGuire Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia Mr P. Tulgren Australian Workers' Union (Qld Branch) Mr K. Alexander National Tourism Industry Training Committee Ms A. Rein Commonwealth Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism Mr B. Ward NSW Department of Industrial Relations and Employment Mr A. Mills Qld Industry and Commerce Training Commission, Department of Employment and Industrial Affairs Ms J. Bertram WA Department of Employment and Training Mr P. Han NT Department of Business, Technology and Communications Mr M. McCallum Tasmanian Government Traineeship Co-ordination Group Mr P. Rouleston Technical and Further Education Mr G. Scott Members were appointed on 9 November 1985. Meeting dates: 1985: 9 October and 22 November. 1986: No meetings held. LOCAL GOVERNMENT WORKING GROUP Members Representative Chairman, Local Government National Industry Training Committee Prof Ronald Gates Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Mr B. Condon Local Government National Industry Training Committee Mr M. Regnis Municipal Officers' Association of Australia Mr S. Gibbs Local Government National Industry Training Committee Mr D. Flores Australian Workers' Union (Qld) Ms J. Walker Local Government Association of SA Mr G. Hill Victorian Department of Labour Mr P. Monie Technical and Further Education Ms V. Soo Qld Industry and Commerce Training Commission, Department of Employment and Industrial Affairs Ms J. Bertram Credland and Bauer Mr C. Black Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees' Union of Australia Mr B. McCarney Members were appointed on 19 December 1985. Meeting dates: 1985: 19 December. 1986: 21 February. NATIONAL OFFICE TRAINEESHIP WORKING GROUP Members Representatives Chairman, Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Mr C. O'Connell appointed 6.1.86 Employers-Confederation of Australian Industry Mr D. Nolan appointed 6.1.86 Unions-Federated Clerks' Union of Australia Mr T. Sullivan appointed 6.1.86 Conference of TAFE Directors, Curriculum Services, Victorian TAFE Board Ms B. Jamison appointed 6.1.86 Australian Council of Independent Business Schools-Pride's Business College Ltd, Adelaide Ms P. Walsh appointed 6.1.86 State Government Representatives New South Wales Department of Industrial Relations and Employment, Women's Directorate Ms V. Jones appointed 6.1.86 Victoria Department of Labour, Training Division Ms P. NiIvor appointed 9.1.86 Queensland Industry and Commerce Training Commission, Department of Employment and Industrial Affairs Mr L. Fox appointed 6.1.86 South Australia Technical and Further Education Mr J. Mitchell appointed 6.1.86 Western Australia Department of Employment and Training Mr A. Standen appointed 12.2.86 Tasmania Federated Clerk's Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch Mr D. Fry appointed 6.1.86 Australian Capital Territory ACT Office-Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Mr G. Myers appointed 10.1.86 Northern Territory Department of Business, Technology and Communications Mr S. Pathmanathan appointed 29.7.86 Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Mr B. Carlon appointed 6.1.86 Mr S. Saunders appointed 6.1.86 Department of Education Mr T. Stuart appointed 6.1.86 Meeting dates: 1986: 15 January, 28 February, 2 May, 6 June, 24 June and 29 July. (4) State Task Forces. There are tripartite mechanisms in each State and Territory to oversight the implementation of traineeships. The following details reflect the arrangements in each State and Territory. COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TRAINING COUNCIL (N.S.W.) Members Representatives Chairman, Department of Industrial Relations and Employment Mr J. Wansbrough Department of Industrial Relations and Employment Mr A. Mills Mr J. Crawford Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Mr R. Coffy Technical and Further Education Mr B. Power Department of Education Mr R. Winder Mr A. Ruby (alternative) Employer/Employee Representatives Mr D. Wright Mr G. Livermore Mr G. Smith Mr G. Maloney The Hon. M. Morris Ms K. Spooner Mr P. Bryant Mr G. Brack Mr J. Thirlwell Members were appointed on 7 June 1985, except for the DEIR member, who was appointed on 26 June 1985. Meeting dates: 1985: 26 June, 24 July, 21 August, 24 September, 9 October, 30 October and 4 December. 1986: 6 February, 6 March, 3 April, 1 May, 5 June, 3 July and 7 August. INDUSTRIAL TRAINING COMMISSION OF VICTORIA (ITCV) Members Representatives Chairman, Department of Labour Mr J. Nathan State Director, Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Mr J. Cooley Technical and Further Education Mr J. Mason Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union Mr E. Scott Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees' Union of Australia Mr P. Slape Printing and Kindred Industries' Union Mr D. Barren Electrical Trades Union of Australia Mr R. Luckman The Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia Mr M. Butcher Metal Trades Industry Association Mr D. Wills Victorian Employers' Federation Mr D. Ferguson Australian Chamber of Manufactures Mr B. Phillips Master Builders' Association of Victoria Mr B. Cochrane Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association Mr P. Small Australian Society of Engineers Mr R. Morgan Members were appointed on 26 March 1984. The ITCV usually meets on every second Wednesday in the month. STATE STEERING COMMITTEE (QUEENSLAND) Members Representatives Chairman, Department of Employment and Industrial Affairs Mr P. Henneken Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Mr D. Green Technical and Further Education Mr P. Tait Industry and Commerce Training Commission (Mount Isa Mines) Mr W. Dearlove Industry and Commerce Training Commission (Queensland Confederation of Industry) Mr R. Bryce Industry and Commerce Training Commission (Trades and Labour Council) Mr H. Hauenschild Industry and Commerce Training Commission (Australian Workers' Union) Mr K. Low Commonwealth Department of Education Mr J. Kelly Members were appointed on 22 May 1985. Meeting dates: 1985: 22 May, 31 May, 21 June, 12 July, 26 July, 16 August, 30 August, 20 September, 4 October, 18 October, 1 November, 15 November, 29 November and 20 December. 1986: 17 January, 21 January, 7 February, 21 February, 7 March, 25 March, 11 April, 6 June, 20 June, 11 July and 25 July. STATE CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) Members Representatives Chairperson, Office of Employment and Training Ms M. Wagstaff Industrial and Commercial Training Commission Mr G. Mill Department of the Premier and Cabinet Mr G. MacDonald General College Operations, Department of Technical and Further Education Mr P. Fleming Commonwealth Department of Education Mr J. Barwick Department of Education Mr W. Marsh Department of Treasury Ms S. McIntosh Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Mr N. Scott Appointments were approved on 19 April 1986. Meeting dates: 1985: 28 May, 11 June, 14 June and 20 June. 1986: 6 March, 3 April, 1 May, 5 June, 3 July and 7 August. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Members Representatives Chairman, Executive Officer-Department of Employment and Training Mr M. Cross Department of Employment and Training Mr B. Ryan Technical and Further Education Mr P. Russell Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Mr G. Evans Employer/Employee Representatives Mr G. Bunning Mr J. Warham Mr R. Greig Mr F. Brown Ms D. White Ms S. Kennedy Members were appointed on 12 December 1985. Meeting dates: 1985: 12 December. 1986: 24 March, 28 April, 5 May, 3 July and 31 July. STATE TASK FORCE (TASMANIA) Members Representatives Chairman, Training Authority of Tasmania Mr D. Morrow Technical and Further Education Mr T. Leo Department of Labour and Industry Mr G. Urquhart Australian Society of Engineers Mr J. Forster Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia-Tasmanian Branch Mr J. Glisson Innkeepers Lenna of Hobart Ms B. Schmidt Motors Pty Ltd Mr M. Walpole Youth Affairs Council of Tasmania Ms R. Harvey Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Mr R. Lewis Mr G. Allender Commonwealth Department of Education Mr J. McCulloch Australian Workers' Union Mr J. Butler Federated Clerks' Union of Australia Mr D. Fry Hayes Group Mr E. Hayes Hobart City Council Mr B. Southorn Members were appointed on 17 February 1986. The Task Force meets on the first Tuesday of every month. NORTHERN TERRITORY TASK FORCE Members Representatives Chairman, Department of Business, Technology and Communications Dr K. Fleming Department of Business, Technology and Communications Mr M. McCallum Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Mr J. Wilson Mrs D. Pring Mr M. McInerney Department of Education Mr R. Seebeck The above members were appointed on 20 September 1985. Commonwealth Department of Education Mr R. Wilson Confederation of Industry and Commerce Mr R. Crowe Master Builders' Association (NT) Mr M. Elliott Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia-NT Branch Mr P. Jackson Trades and Labour Council Delegate Mrs J. Mason Trades and Labour Council Delegate of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia Mr P. Tulgren These members were appointed on 2 October 1985. Meeting dates: 1985: 20 September, 2 October, 17 October, 6 November and 19 December. 1986: 10 February, 12 March, 1 April and 31 July. (5) State Industry Working Groups. Under the aegis of those State and Territory tripartite mechanisms outlined in Part (4) above, formal tripartite working groups have been established to develop traineeships in particular industries and occupations. There is also a range of informal groups working in a similar way. In total there are some 85 working groups that have been established indicating the substantial tripartite commitment to the development of traineeships. The provision of full details of the membership of all these groups, and their meeting dates, would constitute a task which I believe would unreasonably divert the resources of my Department from normal activities. (Question No. 1062) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 May 1986: (1) Can the Treasurer provide details concerning the level of taxation of royalties paid to Aboriginal people or organisations arising from the mining of uranium or other minerals on Aboriginal land. (2) How is income from this source assessed against the Aboriginal recipients for taxation purposes. (3) How much taxation revenue from this source was received by the Federal Government in the 1984-85 financial year. (4) How is income derived by Aboriginal land councils in respect of permission for mining or other development on Aboriginal land assessed for taxation purposes. (5) How much taxation revenue from this source was received by the Federal Government in the 1984-85 financial year. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The rate of tax payable in respect of payments made to Aboriginals and Aboriginal groups and bodies in respect of mining and exploration activities on Aboriginal land on or after 1 November 1982 is 6 per cent. As set out in the Taxation Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1986 introduced on 19 August 1986, the proposed rate of tax to apply to payments made on or after 1 December 1986 is to be reduced from 6.0 to 5.8 per cent. (2) The tax is collected by the withholding tax system with the mining company or person making the payment being responsible for deducting an amount equal to the tax and forwarding that amount to the Commissioner of Taxation. The withholding tax is a final tax on the mining payments which do not attract further income tax liability in the hands of Aboriginal recipients. (3) Mining withholding tax collections, including collections in respect of royalty payments which are not distinguishable from collections in respect of other payments, totalled $1,216,958 in 1984/85. (4) Payments for permission to mine or develop Aboriginal land are ``mining payments'' for income tax purposes. The payments made to Aboriginal Land Councils are subject to tax as stated in (2) above. (5) See reply to 3. (Question No. 1185) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 June 1986: (1) Can the Minister provide details of the number of Community Employment Program (CEP) projects which Recreation Consultants Pty Ltd of Adelaide have been involved with in South Australia and interstate, including the details concerning the project name, the sponsor name, the total cost of the project, the CEP contribution and the sponsor contribution. (2) Is it mandatory for CEP project proposals involving a State school as the sponsor, to be presented to the State Education Department and the State Department of Housing, in the case of a building project, or other relevant departments, for approval prior to being approved by the CEP Secretariat. (3) How much money has been spent on workers' compensation in the Federal/State CEP, the Jobs on Local Roads program and the Natural Areas Enhancement Scheme (NAES), how many workers have received compensation, what percentage of the workers are involved, and what percentage of the labour costs does workers' compensation account for in these 3 programs, on a State by State basis. (4) What percentage of the labour costs does workers' compensation account for in Federal/State CEP involving building and construction, landscaping and outdoor redevelopment projects, and what percentage of the number of workers involved in these projects have received workers' compensation, on a State by State basis. (5) Have any CEP projects experienced time or cost overruns as a result of workers' compensation action, sick days or absenteeism; if so, what proportion of projects have been affected this way and at what resulting cost. (6) What proportion of building, landscaping and outdoor redevelopment projects have been affected this way. (7) Who is responsible for monitoring workers' compensation claims in CEP projects, and does this monitoring occur at the project site. (8) Why was it felt necessary to have a NAES separate from the Federal/State CEP scheme. (9) Could projects in the NAES have been carried out under the Federal/State CEP. (10) Are workers in the NAES covered under a different award to comparable workers in the CEP; if so, what is this difference. (11) Has it been necessary to arrange separate workers' compensation insurance agreements for NAES projects in any State; if so, what were these projects, how much money in the form of premiums has been paid, what percentage of the labour costs do these premiums represent, and what has been the claims experience in terms of the number of workers involved and compensation paid. (12) Have there been cases where compensation paid out has been less than the premiums paid; if so, what are the details and can the Commonwealth recoup this difference in the particular NAES projects mentioned in (11). Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am advised that the Department's CEP Management Information System cannot readily identify consultants' involvement in projects. In view of this, the following information has been prepared using the knowledge of the Department's State Office CEP personnel. Their advice is that Recreation Consultants Pty Ltd have been involved in 9 approved CEP projects in South Australia and none in other States. Details sought in relation to the 9 projects are as follows: Project name Sponsor Total Cost CEP contri- bution Sponsor contri- bution $ $ $ Challenge Hill Commando Course Upgrading Scout Assoc. of Aust SA Branch... 85,205 57,147 28,058 Ridley Grove School-Community Recreation Area Development Ridley Grove School... 357,626 255,149 102,477 Glandore Complex Landscaping Glandore Complex Inc.... 259,769 182,589 77,180 Community Recreation Facility Development St Augustine's Parish School... 154,378 123,214 31,164 Enfield High School Community Recreation Area Development Enfield High School... 354,198 248,699 105,499 Park Development Prospect (City)... 40,048 27,828 12,220 Clonlea Park-Recreation Area Development Stage 2 Gawler (Town)... 121,903 96,903 25,000 Local Park & Recreation Area Development Hindmarsh (Town)... 338,880 270,269 68,611 Clonlea Park Gawler (Town) (NAES)... 377,730 280,000 97,730 (2) As part of the application assessment process CEP Secretariats in all States/Territories ensure that project applications involving Government schools are forwarded for comment to the appropriate State/Territory Department before being considered by the CEP Consultative Committee. (3) and (4) These questions are unable to be answered as complete and accurate information is not currently available from the CEP Management Information System on workers' compensation costs and manual extraction of the information would involve the examination of some 19,500 approved project applications. (5) and (6) Variations to projects are approved by both the Commonwealth and State/Territory Governments and are entered in the CEP Management Information System. They are not however categorised according to the reason for the variation or the type of project affected. (7) It is usual practice for CEP sponsors to deal with workers' compensation claims directly through their insurers. (8) The NAES forms part of the Commonwealth element of the CEP and as such, far from being a separate entity, it in fact forms an integral part of the CEP. Any differences in project assessment procedures and funding arrangements derive from the fact that NAES is a scheme of national significance, rather than one based in individual States. (9) See answer to Part (8). (10) No, CEP participants under NAES are employed under whatever award is deemed appropriate by the local authority. (11) and (12) In States and Territories, other than South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, workers' compensation insurance coverage has been provided by individual local authorities. In Western Australia and Tasmania all CEP participants on local government projects, including NAES projects, are insured under `blanket' policies. In South Australia, CEP participants under the State/Territory element are insured under a `blanket' cover but NAES projects, as part of the Commonwealth element, were precluded from coverage under this arrangement. The only insurer prepared to offer unlimited common law cover was the State Government Insurance Commission under a separately written policy. The three NAES projects affected were: City of West Torrens: Torrens Linear Park Development. City of Henley & Grange: Torrens Linear Park Development. City of Enfield: River Torrens Pitman Park Development. The total cost of workers' compensation insurance premiums for the three projects was $362,242. The premium was based on a rate of 39.4% of labour costs plus 8.75% stamp duty. Under the specific policy negotiated between the Commonwealth and the State Government Insurance Commission for the three NAES projects a claims experience discount clause was included. The clause read as follows: ``It is hereby agreed and declared that in the event of claims occurring within the Period of Insurance being less than 75% of the premium payable for the Period of Insurance, the Commission shall refund to the Insured 50% of the difference between such claims and 75% of the premium payable. Provided always that: An interim premium of sixty per cent shall be determined not less than 12 months after the effective date of cover and the final entitlement shall be determined not less than 24 months after the effective date of cover.'' The three NAES projects in South Australia have now been completed and an initial claims experience bonus entitlement of $37,812 has already been received by the Commonwealth. It is understood that a further final claims experience bonus entitlement of $25,208 will be received in the 1986-87 financial year. As at 16 June 1986 the total value of NAES related claims awaiting determination by the State Government Insurance Commission was $118,405. The number of individuals these claims represent is not known. (Question No. 1246) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What television advertising programs are currently being undertaken by the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES). (2) What is the purpose of these programs. (3) What is the cost of these programs. (4) What assessments has the CES conducted to determine the benefits of these advertising programs. (5) If the Commonwealth Employment Service has conducted any evaluation of the benefits of these advertising programs, what benefit has been revealed. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The only paid CES television advertising program currently being undertaken is a 15 second spot which runs at the end of the weekly 5 minute `CES Job Show' on STV8, Mildura, Victoria. Other current CES television promotion consists of placements negotiated on an unpaid community service basis: a CES corporate advertisement shown on some New South Wales stations and in the Australian Capital Territory; a Community Youth Support Scheme (CYSS) advertisement in Western Australia; and another CYSS advertisement in Queensland. Also, CES Job Shows are screened on a community service basis by a number of country television stations. (2) To promote the Mildura CES Job Centre. (3) $1,500 for 6 months. (4) None. (5) Not applicable. (Question No. 1342) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) Has the Government deferred construction of the $17m proposed Commonwealth Government Office Block for Wollongong which it claimed was part of its program of assistance to this depressed region. (2) When does the Government intend to proceed with this building's construction, if at all, as no funds have been allocated in the Department's budget for work on this building in 1986-87. (3) How will the space which had been allocated to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in the proposed building now be allocated following the Government's decision to close the Wollongong office of that Department. (4) Are there any other Commonwealth Departments whose space requirements will now either be reduced or cancelled because of changed Government policies adversely affecting the Illawarra region. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government has not deferred construction of the Government offices in Wollongong and is honouring its commitment to the Illawarra region. (2) The contract for the building was signed on 12 May 1986 and construction has commenced. Under instalment purchase arrangements for the project there will be no payment made until the building is completed and ready for occupancy in October 1987. Appropriate forward commitments for the anticipated expenditure on this and other instalment purchase projects have been made in the budget. (3) The space formerly allocated for Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs will be used to cater for already identified increased needs of other tenants and for future expansion. (4) No other prospective tenants have notified my Department of reducing their space requirements in the building or of reducing their representation in the Illawarra region.