Wednesday, 12 November 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition by the undersigned people strongly opposes the introduction of the numbered I.D. card system. This system is totally unnecessary as adequate means of identification already exist and it is also a threat to our civil liberties and the privacy of everybody. In the present bad economic climate there is no justification for wasting millions of dollars to force people to get unnecessary extra identification. We therefore ask that the Senate reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Senator Haines (from 252 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The high interest rates on home loans of 13.5 per cent has and is placing the recipients in a financially disastrous position, as thousands have lost their homes and thousands more will do so if these appalling conditions continue for the young and established home purchasers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge politicians that therefore no government or opposition in a power position should continue to tolerate this cruel, vicious procedure that shatters the very structure of family life. We need a five year period to reduce this absurdity by tackling it at its source. Firstly, interest repayments on home loans to be reduced by 2 per cent annually for the next five years or until it is down to 6 per cent. This would, or should diminish union demands, and cause no hazard for investors, who could reinvest in Government projects, or other worthwhile ventures and also ease the burden on Social Securities. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crowley (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross in an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 75 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 47 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 35 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth that the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill: 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under law, 2. deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. could cause far more damage than they could possible cure. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Senate should: completely reject the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Brownhill (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67 000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 115 citizens), Peter Baume (from 399 citizens), Brownhill (from 264 citizens), Mason (from 789 citizens) and McIntosh (from 266 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 there is a need for an Independent and Multi-Cultural Broadcasting Corporation to give a firm legislative and financial basis for the SBS Network. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should Pass Senator Vigor's Bill with all expediency And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Macklin (from 34 citizens), Mason (from 438 citizens) and Vigor (from 43 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster on 26 April 1986, the Soviet Union has not yet adequately explained to its citizens of those of the Soviet-occupied Baltic States, Ukraine and other areas affected by the radiation fall-out the potential short-term and long-term health hazards and the available modes of prevention or reduction of radiation poisoning. Neither have the appropriate medicines for substitution therapies to minimise bodily accumulation of radioactive elements been adequately provided. 2. That the Soviet Union operates many nuclear power stations without the elementary structural safeguards against radioactive spillage regarded as mandatory in the West. Of particular concern is the safety of the largest Soviet nuclear power station at Ignalina in Soviet occupied Lithuania, of similar design to Chernobyl, which already has a record of operational problems. Radioactive spillage at Ignalina would quickly contaminate the whole of Latvia, Lithuania as well as vast areas of Europe. We request that the Australian Government will: 1. Through the World Health Organization, provide medical aid and broadcast medical information to the victims of radiation exposure following the Chernobyl disaster. 2. Through the United Nations Organisation request the Soviet Union (a) to close down all nuclear power stations similar to Chernobyl till protective structures are built. (b) permit international inspection of such safety structures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and Senators in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, believing that Australia should not host nuclear weapons in its territory or in Australian waters; and that the presence of nuclear armed warships makes a priority target of the ports being visited; and that the safety precautions for handling and deployment of nuclear weapons are inadequate to guarantee safety from accidents; and that the malfunction of the reactor on board a nuclear powered vessel could irradiate a large area of the surrounding environs. Therefore call upon the Australian Government to: prohibit the entry of nuclear weapons to Australia; and to deny access to Australian ports of vessels which are nuclear powered; and to deny access to Australian ports of foreign warships unless an assurance is received that they are not carrying nuclear nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of concern to Australian citizens asks that: 1. The Australian government exert pressure on Moscow to- a. Allow the International Atomic Energy Commission full expert investigation of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and its human consequences; b. Allow Australian Ukrainians to send medical aid to family and friends in Soviet Ukraine; and, c. Allow free communication between Australian and Soviet Ukrainians. 2. The Australian Government- a. Launch a public appeal to help the Chernobyl victims; b. Support the removal of Russian nuclear weapons out of Ukraine; c. Support the decolonization of the USSR so that captive nations like Ukraine and the Baltic States are not exploited for Soviet Russian nuclear purposes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 100 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 fringe benefits tax will place enormous cost increases on employers throughout Australia; (ii) in so doing, the fringe benefits tax will raise the cost of employing labour particularly in remote locations and it will inevitably worsen the already high level of unemployment in Australia; (iii) much of the cost of the tax will be carried by employees as employers reduce benefits; and (iv) the cost of the tax will harm small business particularly as these businesses will be unable to pass on the cost of the tax and as a result many may be forced to close. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Government to repeal this unfair tax before it damages Australian business and thereby reduces the standard of living of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 21 citizens). To the President and Honourable members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your Budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Senator Michael Baume (from 40 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the only activity now taking place in the South Pacific which the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty bans is the testing of nuclear weapons by France at Mururoa and that the export of uranium by Australia to France undermines the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the Government to adhere to the Australian Labor Party's policy, as set out in the Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Bill which prohibits the supply of uranium to France until France stops testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas the fringe benefits tax will place a costly and unfair burden on independent schools. The fringe benefits tax will have the most damaging impact upon schools which provide boarding accommodation for children as they are also required to provide accommodation for staff members to live in and supervise the boarders. Independent schools have limited resources and this additional impost will ultimately have to be passed 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 in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australian showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 739 citizens), Crichton-Browne (from 28 citizens) and Knowles (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill because: We get no legally enforceable rights under the Bill The Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property and not be deprived of it without just compensation and the right of choice between Government and non-Government schools. The Bill gives Canberra extra powers to change our Federal system by the back door without a constitutional referendum. The Bill gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of `X' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that any decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to reduce the local content of the programme, the `Country Hour', would represent yet another severe blow to Western Australian rural people; that even under current programming Western Australian country people receive little locally produced radio, and in view of the inefficiencies in the operations of the ABC disclosed by the Auditor-General, your petitioners call upon the Government to improve the efficient operation of the ABC before it reduces the local content of important rural programmes such as the `Country Hour'. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 69 citizens). To the Honourable the President, and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at proposed cuts to the functions of the Human Rights Commission. In particular the undersigned believe that the Human Rights Commission or any body that may replace it in December must be allocated adequate resources for complaint handling and community education in the areas of human rights and equal opportunity. The functions at present carried by the Human Rights Commission and the additional responsibilities relating to ILO Conventions III require increased resources if the rights of Australian citizens are to be safeguarded effectively, particularly in States and Territories which at present lack anti-discrimination legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 14 citizens). We, the undersigned concerned Australian citizens hereby petition the Honourable Senators to totally reject the current proposals for an I.D. Card and the proposed Data Protection Agency. We believe that they represent potentially undesirable interference in the lives of honest Australians. Provisions for protection of individual privacy cannot be guaranteed as Statutes are easily altered by future Governments. We believe that there are more efficient methods to prevent fraud in the areas of taxation and social security without the use of these two proposals, which go well beyond the reach of the true role of democratic government. i.e. That citizens may live quiet and peaceable lives. The I.D. Card and Data Protection Agency have strong potential under this or future administrations to interfere with the quiet and peaceable lives of its subjects. We, your humble petitioners, in duty bound ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 18 citizens), Peter Baume (from 18 citizens), Brownhill (from 18 citizens), Macklin (from 18 citizens), Mason (from 18 citizens) and Vigor (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: i. a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, ii. subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, iii. farmer unrest at seed prices, iv. monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, v. increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we strongly support `The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. by Senator Vigor (from 60 citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Thai government recently announced that Khao-I-Dang refugee camp will be closed on 31st December, 1986. More than 25,000 Cambodian refugees who survived the `Killing Fields' of the Khmer Rouge and entered Thailand after 1979 are still resident in Khao-I-Dang. We hold grave fears for the future and safety of these refugees who will be relocated to camps along the Thai-Cambodian border when Khao-I-Dang is closed. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should uphold its enviable humanitarian record and act with all haste to facilitate the acceptance and resettlement of as many of these refugees as possible, including a proportion of those who have no relatives to sponsor them. by Senators Mason (from 534 citizens) and Zakharov (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the imposition of the $250.00 Administrative charge will: (1) Prove a disincentive for all students-particularly part-time and mature age students-from continuing their tertiary studies. (2) Lead to higher levels of youth unemployment as fewer students will now enrol in tertiary studies. (3) Impose economic hardship upon the student population at large. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should Vote to reject the imposition of the administrative charge, or, at the very least, vote to impose a lower fee on students who are not full-time. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 156 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: The geographically isolated town of Exmouth, Western Australia, desperately needs a funded child care centre to care for the children of isolated families, single and deserted parents, transient families, working parents and itinerants. There is no relief for housebound mothers and mothers in caravan parks or any facilities for the care of children when parents are sick or hospitalized. Exmouth is unique inasmuch as most residents are young transient families (approximately 2 years stay) with no extended family support which places great stress on the family unit. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Grimes (from 606 citizens). Senator HAMER(Victoria) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petitioning letter bearing 58 signatures objecting to the withdrawal of the private hospital subsidy: Dear Sir, I am enclosing names of people who object to the Government withdrawing the Private Hospital subsidy. By paying a Private Hospital Benefit, it gave security to many of us who have no family, and have to rely on ourselves, and only have our pension. The people whose names are enclosed will be grateful to you for any help you can give in this matter. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Petitioning letter received. Petitions received. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Government has now admitted that the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is unable economically to meet the fleet training needs of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and that RAAF Mirage and Macchi jets (which have used up to half of their operational time in transit) are to be replaced in operations to train and test the RAN's air defence systems by civilian operated aircraft, which already provide extensive target-towing services at the cost of $2m a year; (b) regrets that the Government's irresponsible and damaging decision to wipe out the fixed wing element of the Fleet Air Arm and to sell its A4 jet aircraft to New Zealand has left the RAN so inadequately serviced that it is now being forced to rely on civilians trying to perform `attacking' roles as `enemy aircraft' at considerable cost; and (c) condemns the Labor Government's destruction of the fixed wing element of the Fleet Air Arm that has resulted not only in seriously damaging our defence capability, but is now also causing the diversion of defence dollars to non-professional, non-defence-oriented civilians instead of being spent on maintaining and developing what only 3 years ago was a highly skilled, well equipped, very professional and very highly regarded group of experienced naval airmen totally committed to the defence of their nation, before the Hawke Government got rid of them. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Alston for the period from 12 November 1986 to 5 December 1986, inclusive, on account of absence overseas on Parliamentary business. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) in view of the controversy over the Federal Government's decision to seek World Heritage listing for stage 2 of Kakadu National Park, and having specific regard for the views expressed by eminent conservationists, Mr Harry Butler and the former head of Britain's Monkswood Conservation Research Station, Professor Kenneth Mellanby, that 75 per cent of stage 2 is not worth listing; (b) recognising that under article 10 (2) of the World Heritage Convention interested parties may be invited to participate in meetings of the World Heritage Commission; and (c) expressing its unequivocal support for the Northern Territory Government's right to express its views to the Commission on the World Heritage listing of stage 2 of Kakadu National Park; calls upon the Federal Government to support the Northern Territory Government's attempt to make representations to the World Heritage Commission. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the non-violent protest of the Greenpeace yacht Vega in attempting to hold up the loading of uranium in Darwin on 9 November, 1986; (b) notes, also, the threat of the skipper of the British container ship Forthbank to crush the yacht if it obstructed his ship's docking; (c) express its concern that the uranium's destination is vaguely stated to be Canada and the United States (US) and then possibly other countries after processing; (d) views with apprehension the report of the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington DC, which has pointed to a growing trend of nations other than the US and the Soviet Union to expand their nuclear arsenals in recent years, including Britain, France, Israel and India, with Pakistan and South Africa suspected; and (e) calls on the Federal Government to implement the only real nuclear safeguards by leaving all uranium in the ground and investing capital in socially useful forms of employment. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —Mr President, I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Accounting Standards Review Board-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to sub-section 266g (2) of the Companies Act 1981. 2. The Treasury-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 3. Dried Fruits Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 4. Australian Bureau of Statistics-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to section 24 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975. 5. Don't Settle For Less-Report of the Committee of Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services-together with a summary of the Report. 6. Commission for the Future-Annual Report 1985-86. 7. Aussat Pty Ltd-Annual Report 1985-86. 8. Telecom Australia (International) Limited-Text of a Statement by the Minister for Communications. 9. Australian Biological Resources Study-Annual Report 1985-86. Motion (by Senator Grimes for Senator Button) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the payment of subsidy in respect of certain fertilisers. Bill presented by Senator Grimes, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I table the explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes revised assistance arrangements for fertilisers as announced by the Treasurer in his 1986-87 budget speech and amalgamates the Nitrogenous Fertilisers Subsidy and the Phosphate Fertilisers Subsidy into one Act. Under the new arrangements subsidy will no longer be payable on imported phosphatic and nitrogenous fertilisers. The expenditure saved from this decision has however been re-allocated to increase the subsidy rates on the consumption of locally produced phosphatic fertilisers particularly higher analysis phosphate products in recognition of modern trends in fertiliser usage. The Government is concerned that subsidy benefits will continue to be passed on in full to the consumers. Accordingly this Bill contains strengthened provisions designed to effect this end. The objective of the Government's policy changes is to bring some rationale to the subsidisation of fertiliser consumption. It is most unusual to subsidise imports at any time and certainly inappropriate in the light of Australia's current trading position. The changes are therefore designed to provide benefits to the balance of payments, to bring some benefits to manufacturers in the form of increased price competitiveness and at the same time avoid disadvantaging the rural sector. The decision to withdraw subsidies from imported fertilisers followed long and careful consideration of all the issues involved and consultation with all interested parties. The Industries Assistance Commission studied the industry and reported in October 1985. This was followed by a study by an interdepartmental working group of officers from the Departments of Industry, Technology and Commerce, Primary Industry and the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Perhaps more than with any other issue, the Government has faced a difficult task in trying to reconcile the interests of the producers and users of this important commodity. Subsidies on fertilisers represent an important element of the Government's support for the rural sector. The changes contained in this Bill reflect the Government's strong commitment to that sector and our desire to ensure that the support should be directed in the most efficient manner possible. In the economic and rural policy statement delivered earlier this year we said: `The overall cost of fertilisers will not rise as a result of any decisions that may flow from the Government's consideration of the interdepartmental review or Professor Gruen's review of the Customs (Anti-dumping) Legislation'. We also said that the amount of funding available for fertiliser subsidies would be maintained over the life of the scheme and the appropriations for 1986-87 reflect that commitment. Unlike funding for production bounties which was reduced by 20 per cent in the Budget, funding for fertiliser consumption subsidies has been maintained at $55m per annum. Consequently, the amount previously used to subsidise imports has been reallocated to the consumption of domestically produced phosphatic fertilisers. In doing this the Government has taken particular note of the growing preference of farmers for higher analysis fertilisers by weighting the increase in the subsidies towards these products. Clause 12 of the Bill sets out the increased subsidy on Australian phosphate fertilisers during the 3-year period of the new scheme. These rates are explained in detail in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated. Subsidy payable on nitrogenous fertiliser remains at $20 per tonne of nitrogen content. We have not increased the subsidy on nitrogen because the amount per unit would be negligible, however nitrogen users who use fertiliser mixtures will benefit from the increased subsidy on phosphorus. As a result of these changes, the majority of farmers now pay less for their fertilisers. All manufacturers reduced their prices following the Budget, in some cases after also cancelling previously announced price rises. The price of single superphosphate has generally fallen by $1.30 per tonne and the reductions for the more concentrated phosphatic fertilisers have ranged up to $11 per tonne. This is because subsidy rates have increased by between 10 and 35 per cent. Industry has responded by increasing its output of these concentrated, high analysis fertilisers, to meet the demands of farmers seeking to take advantage of the increased subsidies. The Government has also taken separate action to remove a potential impediment to this change in the manufacturers' product mix. The potentially prohibitive import duty on phosphoric acid used in fertiliser production was removed on 1 November 1986. There have been claims that there is insufficient manufacturing capacity in Australia to meet all the requirements of farmers for fertiliser. Both the IAC in its report on the industry and the Department of Primary Industry in its booklet `Chemical Fertilisers in Australia' have concluded that the domestic manufacturers do have the necessary phosphatic production capacity. Some farmers, however, will no doubt continue to rely on imported products. I understand that most importers have not raised their prices since the Budget, choosing instead to absorb the effects of the removal of subsidy. The main importers are backed by large corporations, in some cases American fertiliser manufacturers, and are not the small companies which some commentators would have us believe. The imported price is of course a world price and still a dumped one at that. The Government will continue however to provide grants which offset the effects of dumping duties on fertilisers. The Bill includes provisions in parts 3, 4 and 5, updating the old legislation to improve administrative effectiveness, in line with similar provisions recently introduced in other subsidy and bounty legislation. It is possible that competition from imports will decline during the next 3 years, or that suspicions might arise among the rural sector that manufacturers are not passing on the full benefit of the subsidies. This Bill strengthens the statutory requirements to ensure that manufacturers do continue to pass on the subsidy. Provisions at clauses 10 and 22 permit the Comptroller-General of Customs to direct that subsidy not be paid to a producer if the producer is not passing on the full benefit of the subsidy and require an appropriate undertaking to be given prior to registration for subsidy purposes. The previous law only contained a provision similar to clause 10. In addition to this, the Government is at present considering revised guidelines against which proposed price increases are assessed, to take account of the new subsidy arrangements. We believe the new arrangements proposed by this legislation to be in the long term interests of Australian farmers. Financial Impact Statement The subsidies proposed by this Bill are expected to cost $55m per annum for the next 3 years. The changes proposed by this Bill will not alter expenditure on current fertiliser subsidies as the subsidies previously paid on imports have been reallocated across locally produced phosphatic fertilisers in the form of higher subsidy rates on those products. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes for Senator Button) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounty on the production, by way of repair, of certain ships. Bill presented by Senator Grimes, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I table the explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is part of a new ship repair assistance package announced by the Government on 10 October 1986, following consideration of a report on the Australian ship repair industry by a quadripartite working group established in June 1984. The major elements of the package are a bounty payable to registered ship repairers and the clarification of the Government's powers of enforcement in its ship safety inspections to give effect to internationally accepted health and safety standards. This Bill proposes the introduction of the cash limited bounty scheme to apply to eligible repairs undertaken by registered ship repairers in Australia. Its companion which I will introduce in a few moments proposes amendments to the Navigation Act 1912 to effect that part of the arrangements relating to safety inspection. Australian ship repairers face a severe cost disability in relation to overseas repairers. There is significant excess repair capacity in Australia mainly resulting from the failure of the industry to invest in contemporary technologies and to adopt efficient work practices. Ship repair and maritime unions concerned about the industry's continuing decline and the use of sub-standard shipping in Australian waters have been conducting a campaign to gain additional ship repair work. This has involved detaining vessels and insisting on repairs which in the view of the unions will remove the sub-standard conditions on board. These practices have damaged the reputation of the ship repair industry and our reputation as a reliable trading partner. The working group I referred to earlier comprising representatives of trade unions, Government, shipowners and ship repairers made several recommendations aimed at increasing the throughput and efficiency of Australian ship repairers. It agreed that any plan of action for the industry must be accompanied by widespread improvement in terms of better work practices and lower costs. It therefore proposed a package approach under which Commonwealth assistance would be conditional upon commitments from the parties involved. I am happy to say that since the working party reported a series of discussions have been held with the industry and the unions and all parties have agreed to accept the proposed package. This agreement represents a significant contribution by both the industry and trade unions; indeed the ship repair and maritime unions have agreed to end their detention campaign as a pre-condition to the implementation of the package. I should mention however that the Bill contains a provision at clause 11 to enable the Minister to cease all bounty payments under the Act should the union campaign be re-activated. This may apply regardless of whether the campaign is wide spread or directed at one particular vessel. Decisions of the Minister in this regard will not be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Government believes that review by that body is inappropriate in this case as any decision will involve high level industrial relations policy issues. As part of its contribution the Government will: (1) Extend the Department of Transport's official ship safety inspection system to give effect to internationally accepted health and safety standards based on the international Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 147. (2) Allow those parts which enter Australia duty free when for use in the construction or modification or ships to also enter duty free when for use in ship repair; and (3) Introduce registration criteria to be met by ship repairers before being eligible for bounty. The proposed bounty in this Bill will be limited to $6m over the next 3 years with bounty payable at a rate of 30 per cent of contract price where eligible repairs cost between $100,000 and $400,000 and 20 per cent for that part exceeding $400,000. Bounty will only be paid to registered repairers for certain repairs to international trading vessels of at least 6,000 dead weight tonnes, whether Australian or foreign owned. Eligible repairs fall to the following categories- (a) Dry docking (including structural repairs and painting) (b) Engine repairs, modifications or conversions (c) Ship systems, which include repairs, modifications or conversions to: Electronic systems; Electrical systems; Communications systems; and Hydraulic systems; and (d) Accommodation refurbishment or upgrading. Under the eligibility for bounty provisions in clause 10, Australian repairers will be required to enter into repair or service contracts with the owners of eligible ships, and because of the bounty limit of $6m in clause 12 they will be required to reserve amounts available for the payment of bounty in respect of the repairs carried out pursuant to those contracts. This should encourage more planned repairs to be performed in Australia, and at the same time, ensure that amounts will be available for the payment of bounty to those repairers who undertake eligible repair work. Clause 12 of the Bill contains provisions similar to those currently operating in relation to shipbuilding concerning the reservation of bounty. As in the shipbuilding scheme bounty will be allocated to repairers on a `first come first served' basis. Those not on the reservation list will be unlikely to receive bounty. Preference for reservation will be given to persons who are to repair pursuant to written contracts followed by those who will repair on the basis of other than written contracts. Provision has also been made for the regulations to prescribe maximum amounts that may be reserved in relation to repair or service contracts. I mentioned that part of the Government's ship repair package is the introduction of registration criteria for the purposes of bounty eligibility. To be eligible to receive bounty, repairers will have to meet strict registration criteria including codes of business and industrial relations practices. The development of these criteria, which will be set out in the regulations, will require detailed analysis of the industry and close consultation with unions, employers and some State governments. I am also expanding the shipbuilding consultative group to include a representative of the repair industry to assist in this matter. The Government believes that introduction of this assistance package will facilitate industry rationalisation and encourage the development of markets which do not currently exist for Australian repairers. It will restore predictability to the industry and improve efficiency within the ship repair industry. Finally, parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill include a number of standard administrative provisions, which are modelled on similar provisions in other recent bounty and subsidy legislation. These provisions are designed to not only assist the expeditious processing of claims, but also to ensure that proper verification and investigation of claims can proceed where necessary. Financial Impact Statement The cost of the bounty assistance to the ship repair industry is limited by clause 12 to $6m over the next 3 years. The relevant appropriation for the financial year 1986-87 is $1.5m. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes for Senator Button) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Navigation Act 1912. Bill presented by Senator Grimes, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I table the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- In presenting the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill 1986, I foreshadowed the contribution to the ship repair assistance package to be made by the Transport portfolio. The Navigation Amendment Bill 1986 addresses the issue of substandard ships plying Australian waters, giving the Minister the power to detain a ship on which conditions are such as to present, in the words of the International Labour Organisation's Convention No. 147, `a clear hazard to safety or health.' The amendment is necessary because the existing powers of detention provided by the Navigation Act 1912 apply only to ships that are unseaworthy, as defined. The term `unseaworthy' has a traditional and internationally understood meaning which does not extend to hazards of the kind that this Bill is concerned with. Following passage of the Bill, the various criteria warranting detention of a ship as substandard will be finalised in tripartite consultation with industry, based on the safety and health standards established by the International Labour Organisation and included in Convention No. 147. These criteria will be published as a Marine Order under the Navigation Act and will govern the Minister's discretion to detain a ship. The Marine Order will, as is customary, be tabled in the manner of a statutory rule for the scrutiny of the Parliament. A ship detained under the provisions of this Bill may continue to be detained until the clear hazard to safety or health is corrected. Financial Impact Statement There will be no significant costs, revenues or savings to the Government arising from the Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motions (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the provision of services for persons with disabilities. That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to enact certain transitional provisions and make certain amendments in consequence of the enactment of the Disability Services Act 1986, and for other purposes. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.15) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. It is with great satisfaction that I introduce the Disability Services Bill. The Bill represents the culmination of sustained effort by a broad cross-section of those many people, both within and outside government, concerned for the future of people with disabilities and families which contain a person with a disability. Honourable senators will recall that during the International Year of Disabled Persons 1981 there was a tremendous surge of interest in the potential, needs, and problems of people with disabilities and the general dissatisfaction with traditional services provided in such areas as accommodation, employment and living skills. On attaining office, this Government decided that there was a need for fundamental change in the way the community provides for the needs of people with disabilities and that a truly comprehensive review of all Commonwealth policies and programs was required. Accordingly, in late 1983, the Government instigated the Handicapped Programs Review to examine all Commonwealth programs and services directed at assisting people with disabilities. This Review was the first of its kind in Australia. It sought submissions from interested groups and individuals and held extensive community consultation, especially with people with disabilities, their families, and service providers. The Bill before us is based on the findings of that Review, the report of which, entitled `New Directions', I tabled in Parliament on 30 May 1985. The report found broad community support for the Commonwealth's policies of meeting needs through mainstream community programs as far as possible, and the ensuring that the least restrictive alternative principle is followed where specific services are required for people with disabilities. Where specific services were required, the Review emphasised that the fundamental criterion in service provision should be the actual outcomes achieved for people with disabilities who are the users of those services-that is, the consumers. The report concluded that substantial improvements were required in the accountability of subsidised organisations for service content and quality, and that major changes were needed in the programs themselves to reflect this consumer outcomes focus. A restructuring of services, funding and other resources was also required. The Review believed that these changes could be effected only through legislative change, particularly the replacement of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 and the introduction of new legislation based on the principle that positive consumer outcomes should be the rationale for program development, delivery and review. On 12 June this year I made a statement in the Senate on the Government's intention to introduce new legislation in these parliamentary sittings, and in that statement I outlined the purposes and scope of the proposed Bill. This Bill honours that commitment. The Disability Advisory Council of Australia and the Office of Disability have played a major role in the development of the legislation. The establishment of the Office of Disability was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in December 1984, with a role which includes carrying forward the thrust of the `New Directions' report. Purposes and Objects The new legislation, intended to take effect as from 1 July 1987, will serve a number of purposes: First, the Bill provides the future legislative basis for the provision of financial assistance to organisations conducting services for people with disabilities to replace the present source of assistance, namely, the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974, which, apart from certain provisions, will be repealed; the Bill also provides a basis, for the first time under this program, of assisting States for similar purposes; Second, it provides a specific legislative base for two related sub-programs-the program upgrading scheme and assistance for people with print disabilities-by incorporating them into the new legislation; Third, it provides for the funding and other mechanisms by means of which existing subsidised services under certain conditions may continue to receive financial support while upgrading to meet the more stringent requirements of the new legislation; Fourth, it introduces greater protection for the interests of both the Commonwealth and people with disabilities who are the users of subsidised services; this is achieved by a variety of provisions and features of the Bill, including a requirement that all services be formally reviewed at intervals of no more than 5 years; Fifth, it provides for a range of activities, such as program related research and development, intended to ensure that services funded under the program are designed to suit the changing needs of people with disabilities; Sixth, the Bill provides a new legislative base for the provision of rehabilitation services by the Commonwealth currently provided for under Part VIII of the Social Security Act 1947. The Bill contains an explicit statement of its objects which will guide the interpretation and administration of the new Act. These are couched in terms of the benefits and objectives desired to be achieved for individual people with disabilities and reflect the philosophical position of the Government outlined in the draft principles and objectives attached to my statement of 12 June 1986 and refined in the consultation process since then in relation to people who experience double disadvantage because of sex, ethnic origin or Aboriginality. It is my intention that these principles and objectives be formalised and be gazetted and so brought within the ambit of the legislation. These principles and objectives will form the basic yardstick for the development of the program. I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES Principles 1. People with disabilities are individuals who have the inherent right to respect for their human worth and dignity. 2. People with disabilities, whatever the origin, nature, type and degree of disability, have the same fundamental rights as all members of Australian society. 3. Every person with a disability has the same rights as other members of Australian society to realise his or her individual capacity for physical, social, emotional and intellectual development. 4. People with disabilities have the same right as other members of Australian society to services which will support their attaining an acceptable quality of life. 5. People with disabilities have the same right as other members of Australian society to participate in the decisions which affect their lives. 6. People with disabilities have the same right as other members of Australian society to the least restrictive alternative in the services they receive. 7. People with disabilities have the same right of pursuit of any grievance as have other members of Australian society in relation to the services which they receive. These Principles may be translated into objectives for service delivery as follows: Objectives 1. That the focus of service delivery to people with disabilities should be the achievement of positive outcomes. 2. That services for people with disabilities should ensure that the conditions of the every-day life of people with disabilities are the same as, or as close as possible to, norms and patterns which are valued in the general community. 3. That services for people with disabilities should be provided as part of local co-ordinated service systems and integrated with generic services wherever possible. 4. That people with disabilities should receive services which are tailored to their individual needs and goals. 5. That programs and services should reflect the needs of people with disabilities who experience double disadvantage as a result of sex, ethnic origin, and Aboriginality. 6. That programs and services should promote a competent and positive image of people with disabilities. 7. That programs and services should promote the participation of people with disabilities in the life of the local community through maximum physical and social integration. 8. That no single organisation providing services should exercise control over all or most aspects of the life of an individual with disabilities. 9. That services providing assistance to people with disabilities, be they specific or generic, should be accountable to consumers and their representatives, funding bodies and the public at large. 10. That programs and services should provide opportunities for people with disabilities to reach goals and enjoy lifestyles which are valued by the community at large and are appropriate to their chronological age. 11. That people with disabilities should have access to advocacy support where necessary to ensure adequate participation in decision-making about the services they receive. 12. That services should provide appropriate avenues for people with disabilities to air and resolve any grievances about the services they receive. 13. That people with disabilities should be provided with avenues for participating in the planning and operation of individual services and opportunities for consultation relating to major policy development and program changes. 14. That services for people with disabilities should respect an individual's rights of privacy and confidentiality. In the above references, individuals with disabilities should be read to include advocates and families of children with disabilities where appropriate. Senator GRIMES —I thank the Senate. The principles and objectives to which I have referred will become integral to the administration of the programs under this new legislation. I also emphasise here that these principles and objectives reflect the Government's belief about how all services for people with disabilities ought to be developed and delivered-not simply those services to be supported under the present Bill. Accordingly, we will be encouraging their use across all relevant programs and services for people with disabilities. Other Key Features The Bill brings together two related programs within my portfolio. Part II of the Bill deals with the provision of financial assistance to organisations, and States, conducting services for people with disabilities, and is directed at implementing the thrust of the New Directions report as far as this program is concerned and overcoming the deficiencies inherent in the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974. Part III deals with the operations of the rehabilitation services program. The new provisions associated with Part II have the following important features. Target Group First, there is a clearly and consistently defined target group which will remove doubt about the intended users of services receiving Commonwealth support under this program. To qualify for assistance under the new provisions, services must be predominantly for persons who have a disability deriving from intellectual, sensory or physical impairment, or a combination of these; whose disability is permanent or likely to be permanent; and whose disability results in a substantially reduced capacity for communication, learning or mobility and a need for on-going support under Part II. There may be some funded organisations which presently provide services to people who do not predominantly fit the target group. These services will not come under the new legislation but separate carry-on funding will be provided for them until alternative arrangements can be made. It is recognised that some agencies have included in their services small numbers of people who do not come within the target group definition; these services will nevertheless be able to come within the new legislation and this will be reflected in the guidelines. Eligible Services To ensure the legislation remains flexible and responsive to the needs of people with disabilities over time, the Bill adopts an innovative approach to endorsing the various service types which may in future attract financial assistance. Under the Bill, the Minister may approve specified kinds of services from a comprehensive list, but the Minister may also approve other classes of services which would further the objective of the new Act-thus overcoming one of the major deficiencies in the present Act. To provide for parliamentary scrutiny, these approvals will be gazetted and subject to disallowance provisions in the same way as regulations. Organisations and Bodies Eligible for Financial Assistance The Bill provides that both States and eligible organisations may qualify for financial assistance for the provision of eligible services. The inclusion of States is a major change; it reflects the fact that most States are already involved to varying degrees in service provision, and the many potential opportunities for co-operative efforts in this field. The new legislation will permit the Commonwealth to provide funds to the States for services provided by them covered under the legislation. The intention is that such funding be provided on similar conditions to those relating to eligible organisations. The legislation will also permit the joint Commonwealth-State funding of services and projects considered as being of joint interest. This will overcome a major restriction of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 and will enable a more co-ordinated effort on behalf of people with disabilities who are part of the target group-for example in relation to the provision of housing or meeting the needs of people with more severe disabilities. The types of organisations which will be eligible for financial assistance for the provision of services under the new Act will be broadly similar to those eligible under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974, although some changes have been included to meet current circumstances. One significant change is that self-help groups will be eligible provided they intend to seek incorporation. Generally, formal incorporation will be expected of all ordinary service providers. The not-for-profit motive remains as a general requirement, local governing bodies continue to be eligible, and in future recognised tertiary institutions will also be eligible. There will be capacity for the Minister to approve other not-for-profit bodies if that furthers the purposes of the Act. Positive Client Outcome Focus The Bill has been drafted to ensure that the focus of funding and administration remains on the achievement of desirable outcomes for people with disabilities. This is reflected in particular in the inclusion of a statement of objects of the Bill; the provision for the gazettal of principles and objectives to be furthered, and guidelines to be complied with, in the administration of the legislation; the new definitions of the basic service types; the new mechanisms for approving eligible classes of services generally; the comprehensive provisions relating to the actual making of grants and the terms and conditions which may attach to the financial assistance, including specific reference to agreed client outcomes; and the statutory requirement that all funded services be subject to a formal review against these agreed client outcome objectives. These various provisions meet the central concerns of the handicapped program review in relation to the disability services program. Mode of Administration The Bill has been drafted for flexibility and economy of administration. The basic approach taken in relation to Part II is that the Act should set the basic parameters, leaving the more important administrative detail to be dealt with by means of gazetted instruments and regulations which would be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. Regulations will cover such matters as the detailed funding formulae to apply to the various service types, including transitional funding provisions. Introduction Strategy and Transitional Provisions for Existing Services The approach adopted by the Government to introducing fundamental changes in the program addressed by Part II is to have the Bill provide for both the new program structure and the means by which existing subsidised services can, under acceptable conditions, be upgraded and progressively transferred into the new structure. Any services for which initial funding is sought after the intended date of commencement of this Part of the Act, that is, 1 July 1987, naturally will be expected to meet the more rigorous standards of the new program immediately. Existing services will need both time and possibly additional support to enable them to make the transition and this is recognised and made possible within the strategy of the Bill. The structure of Part II provides for these two levels of operation and the transition process-with Divisions 1 and 2 essentially providing the framework for the new program and Division 3 that for the upgrading and transition of existing services into the new program over a maximum five-year period. As mentioned in my June 1986 statement, a major consultancy has been commenced so that detailed funding formulae for the new program can be developed. Because of the nature of the task and the need for the Government to consider any new proposals, it is not expected that new formulae can be implemented before 1 July 1988. In the interim, the Government intends that, as with services within the transitional provisions, funding be the same as currently provided under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974, plus increased base staff subsidy which will also be provided to existing services under certain conditions. As with transitional funding for existing services, this will be dealt with by regulation. The increase in base staff subsidy was referred to in my statement on disability services made in the context of the August 1986 Budget tabled in the Senate on 17 September 1986. This initiative will cost $21m in a full year. The intention of the Government is that the new funding formulae to support the new program on an ongoing basis will be responsive to differing client needs and the needs of the different service types. I believe such an approach has the in-principle support of service providers, most of whom recognise, as the Government does, the irrationality, inequities and disincentives associated with the traditional funding approach of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974-which did not recognise the different resourcing needs associated with different levels of disability and service types. This has tended to discourage the provision of adequate services to people with disabilities requiring higher levels of support and the introduction of innovative services. The Government is looking to the new formulae being developed to help correct this bias and other deficiencies of the current funding provisions identified in the handicapped programs review, including the potential for providing incentives for performance in the achievement of positive client outcomes. The upgrading and transfer of existing services progressively into the new program will be a significant task and a strategy has been developed to accomplish this which in recent weeks has been the focus of extensive consultations with consumer groups, service providers and representatives of State governments across Australia. Briefly, the transition strategy for existing services involves the following components: Early in 1987, existing services will be invited to indicate that, subject to meeting the target group criteria, they are willing to negotiate new service contracts. These contracts will include commitment to the principles and objectives and to specific outcomes that will be achieved with additional assistance to be provided where the basic staff subsidy of 50 per cent is increased to 65 per cent. From the commencement of the Act on 1 July 1987, those services which enter into the new service contracts will continue to receive ongoing support at current Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 levels plus the additional staff subsidy component. These services will be referred to in the Act as prescribed services. With the introduction of the new funding formulae, these prescribed services will be progressively brought within the new program structure. This will be subject to their meeting certain conditions that demonstrate a capacity to comply with the principles and objectives, to meet the more stringent requirements, and to achieve acceptable positive client outcomes. Prescribed services which have been brought under these transitional provisions but fail to meet their upgrading and restructuring obligations will not be funded beyond 30 June 1992. Where existing services are ineligible under the Act, by virtue of their client composition, the intention is that carry-on funding outside the Act will be provided under ministerial discretion pending the making of longer term arrangements for those services. This will be to ensure that the welfare of people with disabilities who use those services is not adversely affected. Current services which are unwilling to commit themselves to meeting the new requirements will be funded outside the Act for a limited time. The Provision of Rehabilitation Services by the Commonwealth As I mentioned earlier, the Bill incorporates a new legislative base for the provision of rehabilitation services by the Commonwealth, currently provided through Part VIII of the Social Security Act 1947. This constitutes Part III of the Bill. These services are for people of working age requiring rehabilitation programs for a limited time to enhance their prospects of entering, re-entering or remaining in employment or living independently. The main provisions of the current legislation are retained in Part III with some amendments having been introduced to enable a greater range of services to be provided, and to streamline the administration of the program. In particular, the Bill widens the scope of what may be provided to an eligible person, from `treatment and training' as it is currently described in the legislation to `a rehabilitation program'. This is consistent with the changes which are taking place in the delivery of rehabilitation services from a predominantly institutional and medically oriented base to a regional base which concentrates on social and vocational programs. The new definition will still allow my Department to arrange for the provision of treatment services where they are necessary, but it will also enable the provision of a wide range of other services which will assist people with disabilities in the target group for this program to reach their social or vocational goal. This, of course, includes an increased capacity to live independently. The Bill will also enable support to be provided, by way of work place modifications or special equipment, to assist people with disabilities to retain their employment; this assistance is not possible under the existing legislation which was confined essentially to those people with disabilities who were unemployed. At the same time, the Bill will enable the Secretary to charge for all or part of the cost of a rehabilitation program where a client has the financial ability to meet that cost. Rehabilitation services will continue to be provided free to those relying on a pension or benefit for their income. The removal of this legislation from the Social Security Act 1947 means that the Social Security Appeals Tribunal is no longer appropriate as an avenue of appeal to clients undertaking rehabilitation programs through my Department. Nevertheless, the Bill makes specific provision for clients of the rehabilitation services program to apply to the Secretary of the Department and subsequently to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of decisions with which they are dissatisfied. The Bill also incorporates strict penalties for those disclosing information on clients and I believe that these penalties and the appeal rights which I have just mentioned are a further indication that this Bill recognises the rights of people with disabilities. Program of Aids for People with Disabilities In my June 1986 statement, I indicated that it was intended that the Bill would incorporate the Commonwealth's program of aids for disabled people-PADP. This program provides funds for the provision, through State and Territory health services infrastructures, of a range of aids to assist people with disabilities live in the community. Since my June parliamentary statement, and as referred to in my subsequent public statement on disability services issued at the time of the August 1986 Budget, the Commonwealth has been negotiating with the States on the implementation of new arrangements for Commonwealth aids assistance. As these negotiations are still proceeding, the Government has decided not to disturb the present legislative provisions for this program at this stage. Financial Impact It is expected that the Bill will be proclaimed to commence on 1 July 1987. It is estimated that expenditure on services for people with disabilities under this Bill will be of the order of $140m in 1987-88 and $152m in 1988-89. It is estimated that expenditure on the provision of rehabilitation services by the Commonwealth under this Bill will be $3.9m in 1987-88 and $6m in 1988-89. Conclusion The Disability Services Bill provides a new deal for people with disabilities-one in which there is a strong legislatively sanctioned framework for the maximisation of their potential through the provision of appropriate, responsive and well-managed services within a flexible program, with the proper recognition of their rights and dignity and opportunity for the fullest possible participation in the community. With this Bill and the related measures announced in the Budget, the Government believes it has honoured its commitment to reform one of its major program areas in accordance with the handicapped programs review. The Government has set the stage, and it will be up to all the players-Parliament, government, departments, service providers, people with disabilities, parents of people with disabilities and the community at large-to ensure that the spirit of the legislation is kept to the fore and acted upon. We have sought to establish a dynamic, responsive process which the community at large and all levels of government can use to meet the needs and aspirations of people with disabilities in positive and creative ways. Finally, I take this opportunity to thank those many groups and individuals, including a great many people with disabilities, the Disability Advisory Council of Australia, the Office of Dis- ability, and officers of my Department, who have contributed in various ways to the shaping of the Bill. It truly reflects the spirit of consensus which the Government has sought to bring to the issues of importance to all Australians. I commend the Bill to the Senate, and I table the explanatory memorandum. Mr President, I seek leave to have the second reading speech for the Disability Services (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill serves a number of purposes relating to the introduction of the Disability Services Bill 1986. The main measures contained in the Bill are amendments to the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 and Part VIII of the Social Security Act 1947 consequential to the introduction of the Disability Services Bill. This Bill will provide for the repeal of Parts II to VI of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 from the date of commencement of Part II of the Disability Services Act. The repeal of Parts II to VI will prevent the making of any further grants under this Act in relation to capital projects, maintenance or rent of premises, acquisition of equipment, and the provision of recurrent funding in relation to staff. The financial assistance currently provided under these Parts will be provided under the new Disability Services Act upon its commencement. This Bill will retain the current funding arrangements under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 in relation to the following three payments- the handicapped children's benefit will continue to be paid to eligible organisations that provide approved residential accommodation for handicapped children; training fees (a one-off payment of $500 for each sheltered employee who successfully moves to open employment) will continue to be paid to eligible organisations that provide sheltered employment; and the open employment incentive bonus (a one-off payment of $500) will continue to be paid to a sheltered employee who successfully moves to open employment. Funding arrangements for these payments will be retained so as not to disadvantage eligible organisations providing existing prescribed services and persons with disabilities who benefit from these services. However, these funding arrangements will be retained only until 30 June 1992, after which no further payments may be made under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974. This is also the date after which no further funding will be payable to prescribed services existing at the date of commencement of the Disability Services Act which have not made the transition to become eligible services under that Act. This Bill will repeal those provisions of Part VIII of the Social Security Act 1947 made redundant by Part III of the Disability Services Act, from the date of commencement of that Act. Rehabilitation allowance, paid in relation to certain persons undertaking a rehabilitation program under Part III of the Disability Services Act, will continue to be paid under Part VIII of the Social Security Act 1947. This Bill will also make transitional arrangements in relation to certain matters arising under provisions of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 and the Social Security Act 1947 repealed by this Bill as a consequence of the Disability Services Bill 1986. This Bill will also amend the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971, the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965, the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945, the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, and the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1986 to make amendments consequential to the introduction of the Disability Services Bill 1986. This Bill is expected to involve no significant expenditure or savings. The net financial impact is expected to be neutral. I commend the Bill to the Senate and table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.42) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to amend four Commonwealth Acts to enable Australia to implement a number of anti-pollution initiatives and to improve aspects of the existing legislation. The Bill represents a further major step in marine pollution prevention and control in Australia. Senators will be aware that the Government is committed to ensuring Australia's acceptance of conventions which have benefits for Australia and which will enhance our reputation internationally. Accordingly, our national transport policy supports the promotion, conclusion, ratification and application of transport conventions under the auspices of the United Nations and its specialised agencies, in particular the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Since coming into office, the Hawke Government has demonstrated an active participation in the work of IMO. This is illustrated by Australia becoming a party to the following conventions: International convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 and its 1978 protocol (entered into force for Australia in 1983); the 1983 amendment to the International Convention on Load Lines 1966 (1984); the International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969 and the Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances Other Than Oil, 1973 (1983); the International Convention of Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 and its 1976 protocol (1983); the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (1983); the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979 (1983); and the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (1985). As an island nation, Australia, with its extensive coastline and spread of territorial waters, possesses national assets of immense economic and recreational worth. Accordingly it is of fundamental importance that we face up to our responsibility and ensure that we continue to provide a high level of protection for our marine environment. I believe this Bill has the capacity to further improve marine environment protection by prohibiting the discharge of harmful substances into the sea. It is incremental to and consistent with the approach taken by this Government towards the marine environment on previous occasions. The Bill currently before the Senate contains amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 and the Navigation Act 1912, which will enable Australia to implement annexes III, IV and V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL). This will place Australia in a position to exercise control over the discharge of ship-sourced pollutants of all types. MARPOL, as the 1973 Convention and its 1978 protocol are commonly known, is a significant departure from previous pollution conventions, as the one treaty addresses ship sourced pollution in all the various forms. Australia signed the convention, subject to ratification, in 1973. Contracting states to MARPOL are obliged to apply Annexes I and II, which deal with oil and noxious liquid substances respectively. Annexes III, IV and V are optional and respectively deal with pollution by harmful substances carried in packaged form, sewage and garbage. Legislation to bring annexes I and II of the Convention into force was passed by Federal Parliament in the autumn sittings of 1983, with bipartisan support. Amending legislation extending the operation of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act to include all ships in the Australian territorial sea and coastal waters also received bipartisan support and was passed in the autumn sittings 1986. The current Bill will enable Australia to fully implement the remaining requirements of this Convention. I should point out that Marpol annexes III, IV and V will be implemented by way of complementary Commonwealth-State-Territory legislation in accordance with an agreement reached by Ministers of the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) and endorsed by the Government. The annexes, therefore, will be accepted by Australia when all the necessary legislation is enacted by all governments and they will enter into force for Australia when the annexes enter into force internationally. Annexes III, IV and V of Marpol will each enter into force internationally 12 months after the date on which a minimum number of 15 states, with not less than 50 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping, become party to them. Although these conditions have not yet been fulfilled, progress is being made and annexes III and V are expected to enter into force within the next 18 months. There is not as much international support for annex IV which could result in its entry into force being less certain. I will briefly summarise the contents of annexes III, IV and V. Annex III contains regulations for the prevention of pollution by harmful substances carried by sea in packaged forms, or in freight containers, portable tanks or road and rail tank wagons. The annex contains specific requirements relating to the packaging and carriage of such substances. Discharges by jettisoning of harmful substances is totally prohibited except where safety of life or the ship is involved. The master or the owner of a ship is required to notify the appropriate authority at least 24 hours prior to loading or unloading such substances. To assist with the implementation of these requirements internationally, the international maritime dangerous goods code is being revised to cover pollution aspects. I believe the evolutionary change of attitudes to environment protection is reflected in this Bill. With the introduction of these amendments, paragraph (c) of section 250 of the Navigation Act 1912 inserted in 1912 will now be removed. This provision authorised the master of a ship to throw overboard any dangerous goods shipped without his knowledge and specifically exempted such a master from any liability whatsoever. Annex IV of the Convention contains regulations for the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships, and applies to all ships over 200 gross tons or those certified to carry more than 10 persons. All discharges of sewage from Australian ships are prohibited, except under conditions specified in the Bill. No discharges are permitted within the Great Barrier Reef area. In addition to the discharge requirements, Annex IV contains requirements relating to periodical surveys, and the issue of an international sewage prevention certificate. Valid certificates must be carried on board a ship and be produced when a ship applies for clearance to leave an Australian port. Annex V contains regulations for the prevention of pollution by garbage. The complete prohibition placed on the disposal into the sea of plastics, including synthetic ropes and fishing nets, is a feature of this annex. Additionally, specific minimum distances have been set for the disposal of the principal types of garbage, including dunnage. The permissible degree of discharge is directly related to the degradability of the waste. Again, disposal of garbage in the Great Barrier Reef area is prohibited. I believe that a significant effect of this annex will be a reduction in the quantity of litter and waste material which washes up on to our beaches and coastline. From my own experience I know that the beaches in New South Wales, on occasions, suffer this problem. The cleanliness of Australian beaches should be enhanced as a result of this legislation. Additionally, there have been complaints from the fishing industry concerning the problems caused by the disposal of garbage at sea. In particular, concern regarding the fouling and consequent damage of fishing nets. For these reasons, I believe the controls proposed by this Bill will be welcomed by all concerned. The introduction of these new controls into Commonwealth legislation is based on the legislative arrangements recommended by the Australian Transport Advisory Council, which requires that complementary Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory legislation be enacted before Australia can ratify annexes III, IV and V of Marpol. The proposal is therefore in accordance with long-standing arrangements between the Commonwealth, States and Northern Territory for control of ship-sourced pollution. A second aim of the Bill is to update existing legislation to reflect the 1985 amendments to annex II and protocol I of the Marpol convention. These were adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in December 1985, and have also been endorsed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC). Annex II deals with the prevention of pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk. These amendments will enter into force internationally on 6 April 1987. They are the result of general agreement that the original provisions of annex II, developed in the early 1970s, needed revision to take account of subsequent technical developments. The amendments are recognised by shipping and pollution specialists in government and the shipping and chemical industries as being more in tune with actual conditions encountered on board chemical tankers than were the original annex II provisions. Additionally they are designed to make annex II easier for administrations to implement, as the need for on-shore facilities for the reception of chemical wastes is reduced. The amendments to Protocol I of Marpol incorporate new comprehensive mandatory incident reporting requirements. These new pollution reporting obligations and the accompanying guidelines are designed to speed communication, enabling authorities to respond quickly and be better informed in the event of actual or potential accidental spillages, cargo losses, and illegal discharges. The simplification and standardisation of ship reporting principles and procedures were the major aims of the Protocol I revision, and have consistently been supported by Australia at international maritime organization meetings. The standardised procedures will avoid the confusion caused by the variety of reporting requirements, imposed by individual authorities, as ships move from one area to another. As on previous occasions during the development of Marpol, Australia has argued strongly for the special protection measures to safeguard the Great Barrier Reef region. Special recognition of this unique area is contained in the Convention. This level of protection is maintained in the proposed amendments, which specifically prohibit discharges of chemicals, sewage and garbage in the reef region. The third function of the Bill is to enable Australia to implement the 1984 protocol to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969. The Convention is implemented in Australia by the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981, which entered into force on 5 February 1984 and will be amended by this Bill. The polluter pays concept is contained in the convention and the new protocol, which are designed to ensure that compensation is available to those suffering oil pollution damage as a result of maritime casualties. Owners of ships carrying more than 2000 tonnes of oil are required to maintain insurance or other financial security against the risk of such an eventuality. The 1984 protocol amending the civil liability convention was developed to overcome the adverse effects of inflation on the real values of the limits of liability. The protocol adopts a minimum for vessels of less than 5,000 gross tons of three million special drawing rights, as defined by the International Monetary Fund. This is equivalent to approximately $A5.8m. For larger vessels, liability is calculated on the basis of the vessel's tonnage, with an overall maximum for the ship's liability of 59.7 million SDRS, or $A114.5m. As an example, a tanker of 39,000 gross tons which is insured to a limit of $A10.35m under existing legislation will be required to be insured under the 1984 protocol to a limit of $A33.5m. This reflects a threefold rise in the real value of the level of compensation available, and will ensure that the damage that such a ship can cause will be more effectively compensated. Other amendments effected by the 1984 protocol include extension of the geographic scope of the Convention to cover incidents occurring in the 200-mile zone. This will afford additional protection to sensitive areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and safeguard existing and potential fisheries in the Australian fishing zone. The scope of the legislation will also be extended as tankers in ballast and combination carriers are now included in the convention coverage. Extensive consultations between Federal and State officials resulted in agreement on adoption of the protocol. This was accepted and has been recommended by ATAC Ministers. The text of the protocol has been discussed with industry groups representing insurers, shipowners, and cargo interests, and no objections have been raised. Although the benefits to a coastal State of the expanded scope and increased limits provided by the protocol are readily apparent, the additional costs are extremely difficult to predict. Shipowners will have to arrange increased insurance cover. However, the nature of shipping insurance, which is provided largely by protection and indemnity clubs on a mutual indemnity basis, makes it impossible to predict the cost involved. Furthermore, whether a cost increase would be reflected in increased freight rates and charges in the existing highly competitive international freight market is far from certain. Finally, the Bill will align references to the tonnage of ships in the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy Collection) Act 1981, with the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969. Australia is already a party to this latter Convention, which entered into force in 1982. The absolute tonnages of certain types of ships for levy purposes will undergo substantial variation following the determination of new tonnages under the 1969 Convention, although existing ships are not required to be re-measured for tonnage purposes until 1994. In the intervening period an owner may opt to measure a ship under the Convention or by the traditional method embodied in the Navigation (Tonnage Measurement) Regulations. The amendment proposed by the Bill will compensate for the variations between each measurement regime and cater for ships whose tonnage has been calculated under either regime. I believe the amendments contained in the Bill will result in substantial improvement in both the control of ship-sourced pollution and compensation available for damage caused by a pollution incident, and will maintain Australia's position in the international forefront in the field of marine pollution convention implementation. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to obtain parliamentary approval for Australia to take up increases in its capital subscriptions to two international financial institutions-the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation. Honourable senators will be aware that the main activity of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which was established in 1947, is that of providing loans to developing member countries. Following an increase in the IMF's quotas in 1983, in August 1984 the governors of the IBRD approved an increase in the authorised capital stock of the IBRD of $US7 billion. This allowed the bank to pursue the practice whereby its members' shareholdings were increased in parallel with their IMF quotas. In September 1984, governors authorised an additional resolution which provided for those members who had suffered a relative decline in their shareholding to regain their relative share. Australia was one of the countries affected by this resolution. The text of the two resolutions, including the number of shares to which each member is entitled to subscribe, is included in the explanatory memorandum to this legislation. These two increases will allow the Bank to expand its borrowing on the world capital markets. It is these borrowings which largely finance the Bank's loans to developing countries. Australia voted in favour of the resolutions authorising these capital increases. Members, including Australia, are entitled, but not obliged, to subscribe to this authorised increase. Australia is entitled to subscribe to 745 shares under the special capital increase and to 70 shares under the increase in certain subscriptions to capital stock, a total of 815 shares, valued at $US98.32m. Under these capital increases, 91.25 per cent of the subscription is to remain on call, the other 8.75 per cent ($US8.60m) is to be paid-in. Of the paid-in portion, 10 per cent ($US0.86m) has to be in the form of gold or United States dollars while the balance ($US7.74m) can be in Australian dollars. The latter amount ($A12.29m at the current exchange rate) will be paid in the form of a promissory note. The initial 10 per cent cash payment will be made by 31 December 1986. Subject to agreement with the Bank, the promissory note will be encashed in eight equal biannual instalments of approximately $A1.54m each over the five financial years commencing 1986-87. The exact Australian dollar cost will depend on the exchange rate in effect at the time of lodgment of the promissory note. The IBRD is an effective and efficient institution in the provision of development assistance to developing countries, and it plays an important role in the South East Asian region. This has been recognised by Australian governments over the years since the Bank's establishment. Up to the end of June 1986, the Bank had lent about $US105 billion to its member countries. Projects financed covered all the major sectors of economic development but there has been emphasis on infrastructure facilities in the transport and communications, industry and energy sectors, as well as projects for agriculture, education and water supply. I believe it to be in Australia's interest to continue its policy of support by taking up, in full, the increase in our capital subscription to which we are entitled under the two resolutions. The International Finance Corporation, which was established in 1956 as an affiliate of the World Bank, is an international development institution established to promote the growth of productive private investment and to assist enterprises which will contribute to the economic development of its developing member countries. In addition to the direct financial assistance it provides, which may take the form of loan or equity investment, it also arranges other investment finance, mainly from the private sector, to be made available. Up to the end of June 1986, the Corporation had outstanding investments of about $US2.4 billion. In view of the need to ensure that the IFC has adequate resources to expand its operations, the governors of the Corporation approved a resolution in December 1985 authorising an increase in the IFC capital of $US650m. This will double the IFC's capital. Australia voted in favour of the resolution. As in the case of the IBRD capital increase, member countries are entitled, but not obliged, to subscribe to additional shares. Australia is entitled under the resolution, the text of which is set out in the explanatory memorandum, to subscribe to an additional 14,560 shares at a cost of $US14.56m, all of which would be paid-in. Under the terms of an amendment to the resolution, the initial payment associated with the additional subscription must be made by 1 February 1987. It is expected that payment of $US5.824m will be made by that date, with the remaining commitment being paid in three annual cash payments of $US2.912m each, beginning in February 1988. The Australian dollar cost of these instalments will depend on the exchange rate in effect at the time of payment. The IFC helps to provide the finance, technical assistance and management skills needed to develop productive private sector investment opportunities in its developing member countries. The encouragement of direct foreign investment in developing countries is particularly important given the external debt problems of those countries. I believe that it is appropriate therefore for Australia to register its support for the corporation and its activities by taking up its full share entitlement. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Durack relating to the disallowance of Regulation 4 of the Companies Regulations (Amendment) 1986 be postponed until the next day of sitting. Debate resumed from 11 November, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.45) —The Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill will have the support of the Opposition. We believe that acts of care and compassion, and the quality of caring, help to characterise any society and the quality of care that is provided for aged Australians is an important part of that provision. However, we believe that the kind of care that is provided should be appropriate to the need. We believe that this legislation, introduced by a government which we do not generally support, is both appropriate and proper and we wish to be associated with it. This legislation will have our general support but we will propose some specific amendments to it in the Committee stage which we hope will improve both its acceptability and its efficiency. We are willing to discuss matters of detail with the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) if that seems appropriate. I wish to discuss several matters separately and seriatim: First, the philosophy underlying the legislation; secondly, certain moves that have been made to transfer regulation making power to gazettal making power; thirdly, certain financing and indexation provisions; and, fourthly, a new capital funding formula contained in the Bill. The Liberal and National parties have a considerable interest in this kind of legislation. After all, the National Health Act 1953, introduced by a Liberal Government under the Menzies Administration, introduced subsidies. The Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 started capital funding in that area. The Aged Persons Hostels Act 1972 introduced funding for hostels and my friend and former colleague, the Honourable Bill Wentworth, was responsible for that legislation. I believe that each of those pieces of legislation enjoyed bipartisan support because they sought to improve the options for Australians entering their last years. This legislation has come from the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review and it seeks to put into effect some of the findings of that review. It seeks to provide better resources for hostel care in Australia and that is largely what Part II of the legislation is concerned with. It seeks also to make a more rational needs-based provision-that is, needs for care based-of residential care and that is included in Part III of the Bill. The Opposition, in general, supports both of those thrusts. I wish to talk first about the philosophy underlying the legislation as this is the main import of the Bill. It is a real change in the way we approach the provision of subsidies for aged persons care in Australia. This is the first Bill to set in place some of the proposals in the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review and the changes are sensible and desirable. The Government has sought, and we have supported, moves to place more emphasis on home care and support, for example, through the home and community care program. We support that approach. This Bill seeks to provide more emphasis for hostel care as a form of sheltered, residential accommodation. That is sensible and desirable and we support that emphasis where it is appropriate. This Bill has sought to place relatively less emphasis on the nursing homes as the main form of residential care for the aged. The Bill is not suggesting that there be less nursing home provision or fewer nursing home beds. It is merely that nursing homes will have a less dominant position in the overall provision and as a percentage of the total provision. I take it that that will be achieved by controlling the increase in the number of new beds. More new beds will be in hostels and fewer new beds will be in nursing homes but not a single nursing home bed need be lost. It is not a question of fewer nursing home beds; it is a question of a different proportion, a different emphasis and a different percentage. How should we think about what the government is proposing if we want to evaluate it? Each of us in the Senate, whether we like it or not, is a potential user of the services we are talking about today, if we live long enough. It makes good sense to me as a potential user of services. It makes good sense to me to be able to stay in my own home setting for as long as possible and it makes good sense to me, as a user of services, to be able to stay in the most independent class of accommodation for as long as possible and, if I need sheltered residential care, to go into a nursing home only when I have to. That is what I want as a potential user and this legislation takes us down that track. Secondly, thinking about the ones I love, I want the same kind of emphasis for my relatives. I know from my medical practice, from my time as a doctor, what nursing homes look like, what they feel like and what they smell like and I know what hostels look like. I certainly know that there is a world of difference between them. If there is an appropriate need for one class and not the other, fine, let us have the nursing home care. But if it is possible to go to hostels I think it is a better, more pleasant and more desirable way to live. I have seen in the past people who could have been in hostels with more independence, more enjoyment of life, more activity and more personal sovereignty. On the other hand I have seen people accommodated in nursing homes because no alternatives were available. They needed care and they could not find care except in nursing homes. I have seen people go to nursing homes because they did not understand that there were alternative ways of seeking residential care. One of the things that this legislation may help us do is make more widely known what the alternatives are. I have seen people go to nursing homes because they had been in a queue and they wished to take up an available bed rather than wait until their need for care required a nursing home. To look at these changes to the legislation as a taxpayer is not my main concern but it is not my least. I have talked about my concern as a user of services and as a relative but if I look at this legislation as a taxpayer I find the proposals attractive. Not only are nursing homes sometimes the less appropriate choice but also they are much more costly in terms of public subsidy. For every $1 spent by the taxpayer on a hostel bed, $4.30 is spent by the same taxpayer on a private, participating nursing home bed. For every $1 spent on a hostel bed, $5.63 is spent by the taxpayer on a deficit-funded nursing home bed. I can get several points from that. First, it is expensive to operate nursing homes but, where nursing homes are necessary, let us spend that money gladly. Secondly, deficit-funded nursing homes are more than 25 per cent more expensive to the taxpayer than the private participating nursing homes. I hope that the Government will look at that difference as well and try to tell us why it exists and whether we wish to maintain it. If, the need is expressed to us by many Australians, say, members of the Council on the Ageing and members of senior citizens organisations, if their priorities indicate that more hostels would suit them and if it is cost effective to concentrate on hostel provision, it makes good sense to go down that path. I comment briefly that the Senate has taken an interest in the question of residential care for the aged. A report from the Senate on some of the achievements and some of the problems within the nursing home and other aged accommodation areas came down not so long ago. It drew attention to some of the problems. It drew attention to some of the standards of care. It drew attention to some of the needs for care and some of the inappropriate features of the care which is provided. I notice that some members of that Committee, the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, are on the speakers list in this debate. I hope that, during the debate, they will put some of their views about what is an appropriate form of care. I have seen a change in the pattern of nursing home use over recent times. This is partly related to the increasing numbers of Australians who are reaching retirement age, the age of 65 or 70, the increasing numbers of Australians who are becoming what we call `aged aged'-people over 80 years of age-and the increasing need which these people have for some form of residential accommodation. So the numbers are increasing. It is an interesting observation that, whereas 1 1/2 per cent of all Australians aged between 65 and 74 require residential accommodation and whereas 8.5 per cent of all Australians in the next 10-year age group-75 to 84 years of age-need residential accommodation, something like 37 per cent of Australians who are 85 years or older need residential accommodation. As the population is ageing, as Australians are greying, our needs are increasing. The other change I have seen in nursing home accommodations has been that more and more occupants of nursing homes seem to have a genuine need for care, and a genuine need for quite heavy care in some cases. It may not be known to all honourable senators that the nursing homes have a very great turnover. In the first six months following admission as many as half the patients may no longer be there. Some of them may have needed to come in for only a short time; some of them, of course, may have died. But there is a large turnover and, as the Government has brought in assessment teams, we see more and more people in nursing homes who need that form of care. This has put a strain on the people who provide nursing home beds and who run the industry. I have looked at the proposed changes. Let me look now at the changes from the point of view of the nursing home industry. Put very simply, the industry-has expressed to me the view that the interests of the sick and aged are being put at risk by the proposals in the legislation. I am not sure whether that is correct. I read this in a full page newspaper advertisement which you, Mr Acting Deputy President, may have seen last week. I will quote part of the advertisement: . . . ever increasing aged population of Australia will be deprived of any real chance to be accommodated, if they so wish, in nursing homes. I might discuss that in a moment. I think it is incorrect, but that is the kind of concern being expressed from within the industry. It has been expressed to me by some sections of the industry that they should be permitted to build nursing home beds wherever they want and wherever a demand exists. We might discuss that. It has been put to me further by the industry that a Federal Minister prescribes the number of residential places, their type and location, that the Minister has set up assessment teams to determine who may enter nursing home beds and that he prescribes the fee that may be charged. As a result, the nursing home industry has said to me, patients have no choice in the base services available-they are what the nursing home can afford. By the way, that is probably part of the reason why the deficit-funded nursing homes are more expensive-they offer more services. It has also been put to me that patients have no choice in extra services because the fees are fixed. The industry further asserts that the proprietors have no choice in the type of services and no choice in the level of fee. They are arguing for a deregulated system. I understand that part of the industry has actually approached the High Court of Australia and presently a decision is reserved before the High Court challenging the Commonwealth power and practice in this area. That High Court decision will be both important and instructive when it emerges in time. I have listened very carefully to the industry concerns. I do not believe, and I have no evidence to lead me to agree with, the industry assertion that the interests of sick and aged Australians are being put at risk by these proposals. Although I hear the industry's concerns, I cannot accept that that is the case. I cannot accept the assertion that these proposals will mean that the increasing aged population of Australia will be deprived of any real chance to be accommodated if they so wish in nursing homes. That is simply not true. What it indicates is that people in the industry who are knowledgeable and experienced and who are worried about this legislation have simply got it wrong. As to the assertion that beds should be built wherever demand exists, that will be fine if only the industry will then tell me that it does not want subsidies from the taxpayer to be attached to each of those beds when they do exist. The difficulty with that approach and argument, however sympathetic one is to the job those people are doing, is that there is substantial subsidy of everything they do. The private nursing home industry in Australia provides the beds and every approved bed attracts a heavy subsidy from the taxpayer. So the taxpayer does have an interest. If we got to a system where not every bed was subsidised and some beds could be built without attracting subsidy, we might have a completely different situation. But at the moment every nursing home bed is subsidised. There is a taxpayer interest and because of that the call for a completely free and deregulated system simply does not make sense. While ever the Commonwealth is called on to subsidise every nursing home bed, the Commonwealth can properly seek power over the numbers and kinds of beds. I believe that on this matter we support the Minister in what he is doing. I turn now to the provisions in the Bill which seek to replace certain regulations with gazettals. One of the reasons that we have sought to have regulations in place over the years is to give the Parliament a capacity to overturn any regulation which seems inappropriate in the light of current standards or current practice. A continuing major concern of the Liberal Party and the National Party is that matters which are the subject of ministerial determination should generally be capable of disallowance if the Parliament finds them objectionable in some way. Although that power has been there, I cannot recall when we last had to seek to move such a disallowance. It is simply that having the power there leaves with the Parliament a residual capacity. Using regulation power, the Minister has usually made his determinations known by subordinate legislation via regulations and ordinances. But I understand that the preparation and the processing of these is slow; it is tedious; it is subject to the speed and availability of parliamentary drafting. From my own time as a Minister I know that it used to drive me mad trying to get regulations drafted. The general proposition put by the Minister and by the Department that a move from regulations to gazettal will be quicker and simpler is one which we accept, provided that the gazettal notices themselves remain disallowable by either House of Parliament. After all, all we are seeking to do is to ensure that the possibility of parliamentary scrutiny remains. If that scrutiny remains, if the gazettals remain disallowable, that would seem to have merit. I make the point to the Minister that at least one of the gazettals has not been made disallowable. Clause 7 (2), I think, creates a new gazettal which is not disallowable. I am told that it is a power under which no action has ever been taken and under which no action is contemplated. If that is the case, if it has never been used, there is no real point in moving it to gazettals and there should be no real point against leaving it as a regulation-making power. If it is to be made a gazettal, we ask that it be a disallowable gazettal. We will vote against that sub-clause unless the Minister can give us some good reason why we should not do so. I turn now to financing. The Bill provides for measures to increase the amount of subsidy for a hostel sector. We congratulate the Government and we welcome the move. It will enable the better provision of hostel accommodation. I welcome the increase and the indexation moves of hostel fees. It will make hostel provision easier to afford and easier to finance. A new capital funding formula which is contained in the Bill will make it easier for some organisations to obtain capital subsidies. Organisations which are regarded as being in special need categories will be able to attract a 100 per cent subsidy. The Minister will be able to designate certain facilities as special need facilities, and the Minister seeks to be able to designate certain beds in nursing homes as special need beds. We are not worried about the proposition in general; we have a couple of particular questions. In relation to the designation of, say, a special need organisation and the granting to that organisation of a 100 per cent subsidy, it is very important that there be public confidence in ministerial decisions so to do. We are not objecting to it as a principle, but we believe it is appropriate that such a decision be capable of disallowance within the Parliament. I cannot remember when we last moved to disallow one of the Minister's regulations, but the fact that the power is there gives us a very powerful argument against anyone who says it is unfettered ministerial discretion. It is not, because, while there is a disallowance power, we can always come back to the Parliament. We are asking the Minister to agree to an amendment to make the granting of 100 per cent subsidies, where he considers that necessary, capable of disallowance. I do not imagine that we will want to disallow it, but as a principle it should be disallowable. The second matter in relation to special need beds is a more difficult one, and I hope the Minister can give us some assistance on this. I believe clause 13 of the Bill says that upon application by the owner of a nursing home `or otherwise' the Minister may do certain things. Why are the words `or otherwise' there? They suggest that the Minister may designate certain beds as special need beds without the owner of the nursing home having sought such a change. If we are talking about a private participating nursing home, which I might own and which might be my life investment, it may not suit me to have certain beds designated as special need beds. I ask the Minister: Why are the words `or otherwise' there? If we are not convinced that there is an overwhelming reason, we will seek to move an amendment to have those words struck out. That would merely have the effect of providing the Minister with a capacity to redesignate certain beds in private nursing homes only if the proprietor so sought. We think that is a perfectly simple proposition. Unless the Minister can tell us that there is some overwhelming reason for the words `or otherwise' to remain, we will seek to have them removed. I make the point again to the Minister that we are supporting this legislation, but we are trying to make it so that what goes on under the legislation not only is fair but also can be seen to be fair. We think it is desirable and necessary that any ministerial decision either to grant 100 per cent capital funding or to redefine certain beds be seen to be impartial, non-punitive, and non-party political-in fact, totally non-political. Associated with all this is the decision to control tightly and with minimum flexibility-even minimum flexibility for the Minister-the number of beds which may be allocated to a particular region or a particular town, or in relation to a particular application. The Minister may identify the number of beds in a State or a Territory, but we have discovered within States or Territories certain regional needs which arise, perhaps unpredictably. We do not object to the desire of the Government to alter the ratio of beds to favour hostel provision, and we understand that this will happen by adding relatively fewer nursing home beds and relatively more hostel beds. The problem remains that some areas are atypical. Perhaps they are atypical in terms of demography; perhaps a difference in their demography emerges. They may be different in terms of the numbers of migrants in particular areas. I can think of areas of Sydney which have changed very markedly as particular migrant communities have moved in. The residents of certain areas of Sydney are aging at different rates from those for other areas. I can imagine different growth rates for different towns. One has only to look at the north coast of New South Wales, which is growing at about five times the rate of the rest of the State. One can see that local needs may emerge. We do not want to second guess the Minister. We do not want to take out of the Minister's hands the planning and designation of numbers of beds. We are asking, however, that a capacity remain with the Minister of the day such that if he or she thinks a local need has arisen he or she can vary the number by gazettal. That should be disallowable; we should keep the process clean. We will move an amendment to ensure that the Minister has such a capacity. Having said all of that, we are attracted to what this legislation is seeking to do. It is seeking to help elderly Australians to live their lives with more autonomy, more control, more dignity, more choice and more flexibility. It is seeking to provide more appropriate accommodation for many of them through the provision of more hostel beds. The Opposition wishes to be associated with the legislation. In the interests of comity, we ask the Minister to look at our proposed amendments favourably. We believe they are designed to improve the legislation, and we hope that some of them will be accepted. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.12) —The Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 is welcomed in general by the Australian Democrats. This legislation is designed to take what we consider to be appropriate action on some of the recommendations of the report of the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review which was tabled in April this year. It introduces arrangements for controlling the growth of nursing home beds. As a consequence, it is estimated that the Government will save $4m in 1986-87 and $27.7m in 1987-88. On the other hand, increases in hostel and personal care subsidy levels and the introduction of automatic indexation in these levels will increase expenditure on care for the aged by an estimated $5.6m in 1986-87 and $26.5m in 1987-88. The Nursing Homes and Hostels Review report recommended that aged and disabled people should, as far as possible, be supported in their own homes and their own communities, that aged and disabled people should be supported by residential services only where other support systems are not appropriate to meet their needs. The review report said that services should be provided in an atmosphere and using processes which promote, as far as possible, rehabilitation and restoration of function. The manner in which services are provided should develop and enhance personal freedom and independent functioning of all residents. Services should be based on a recognition that for many people discharge to a residential service providing a less intensive form of care or a community-based support service would be a possible and desirable outcome. The Australian Democrats fully support these recommendations. Since April the Commonwealth has been in consultation with State governments, nursing homes and hostels, consumer and welfare groups, and so on. With this legislation the Government is acting upon two of some five areas of need which were identified in these discussions. Those two areas that are the subject of this legislation are the need for a more flexible and integrated planning approach to the provision of residential services and the need for a publicised and better resourced hostel sector. To provide for this, the Bill introduces growth control arrangements for nursing homes. The Minister will be able to specify the maximum number of nursing home beds which can exist at any time during a financial year in each State or Territory and in the regions of each State or Territory. These maxima will be gazetted. The strategy is to maintain growth in new services on the basis of the current national ratio of 100 residential care places per 1,000 people aged 70 years or over and, with this national ratio, to limit the rate of growth of numbers of new nursing home beds to a maximum of 10 per cent of new approvals. By 1988-89 the Government will approve an additional 12,880 places overall, of which up to 1,295 places will be for nursing homes and the balance for hostels. It is clear that in a great many cases the sort of accommodation with the sort of personal care, supports and rehabilitation services provided by hostels for people who need moderate levels of assistance and supervision in their daily lives is preferable. While nursing homes provide extensive nursing care for highly dependent people there are currently many inappropriate placements because of the lack of hostel-type accommodation. The Bill also addresses that area in which currently, under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954, the Commonwealth makes grants to eligible organisations towards the capital cost of homes for the aged and disabled, that amount not being able to exceed 80 per cent of the capital cost. This legislation introduces the ability to meet the special needs of groups such as Aboriginal groups, ethnic communities, the aged and the disabled, such as the deaf or blind aged, by enabling them to receive grants of an amount up to the full capital cost of the provision of such accommodation. The Bill will also apply uniform conditions of approval to both government and non-government nursing homes. Existing provisions exempt government nursing homes from the conditions which relate to the number of beds in an approved nursing home and the approval of patients for admission. However, in practice government homes have been subjected to restrictions since 1981, and this legislation formalises these restraints. The Bill also amends the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act to provide for increases in the hostel care subsidy, respite care subsidy and personal care subsidy. The hostel care subsidy will increase from $1.80 a day to $1.95 a day; the respite care subsidy from $7 a day to $7.50 a day; and the personal care subsidy from $7.80 a day to $8.40 a day. There will also be an additional increase of $2.60 a day in the value of the personal care subsidy, to $11 a day, from May next year, to assist the hostel industry to provide more adequate levels of personal care for dependent elderly people. The Bill will also, importantly, provide a mechanism for annual automatic increases in subsidy rates for hostel care, personal care and respite care. The Australian Democrats welcome any moves to provide for and support alternatives in care for the aging in our society. It is significant, however, that this legislation covers only two of the areas raised in the consultations undertaken by the Government since April-those which I mentioned before, namely the requirement for flexible planning and the need for a publicised and better resourced hostel sector. It will be important that the remaining three areas be also dealt with by government if we are to meet the needs of our aged people, the continuing needs of an increasing section of the community. Those other three areas related to the extension of residential care services beyond hostels to other forms of accommodation such as group housing arrangements, the expansion of community services to assist those elderly people most at risk of premature and inappropriate institutionalisation and the importance of carefully developing the process of assessment so that it will gain support from consumers, professionals and service providers. While the Australian Democrats support the measures in the Bill which provide for the extension of the provision of hostel accommodation, which will introduce a much needed increase in flexibility in the care for the aged, we are concerned that the assumption should not be made that this can be done by the simple redirection of resources from nursing homes to hostels. In a population in which the percentage of older people is increasing, the need for nursing homes will not necessarily decrease along with the provision of additional hostel beds and community services. While it is no doubt the case that a considerable number of people currently in nursing homes-a quite high proportion, quite possibly-could more appropriately be placed in hostel accommodation or cared for in other ways in the community, doubts exist, at least in Victoria, about the assumption which appears to exist that there is a clear demarcation line between hostel and extensive care patients. If, as seems likely under the new provisions, Victoria is facing a possible reduction of some 25 per cent in available nursing home beds, this is cause for concern because it it believed that only around 10 to 12 per cent of current nursing home patients could actually suitably be moved to hostel-type accommodation. Adding the many nursing home-type patients who are currently occupying acute care beds in both public and private hospitals to the long waiting lists already existing for nursing home placements illustrates that there are potential problems. So it will indeed be important that the commitment of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), given in his second reading speech, that the change in the existing balance between providing intensive care through nursing homes and providing appropriate community services and hostel options will be implemented gradually. The Minister said that he recognises that it is essential that implementation does not affect the people who are already residents of nursing homes and that it is carefully monitored, evaluated and, where necessary, adjusted. The Australian Democrats strongly support those comments of the Minister and will be encouraging such flexibility, graduality and adjustments as they become necessary. We particularly welcome the measures in the Bill to maintain the real levels of the hospital subsidies and to increase the other available assistance which has been outlined. In particular, we welcome the provision in the legislation for the annual automatic increases. This annual indexation is quite essential when dealing with the provision of financial benefit to people in need in the community at all levels. Indexation is a practice which recently has probably been more honoured in the breach than actually carried out. All I can do is hope that this Parliament will not be party to any further legislation such as that in respect of the increases expected by pensioners through indexation of their pensions, and that indeed this annual indexation will continue in effect. We also welcome what we see as an affirmative action component in this legislation-the ability provided by the legislation for special needs groups of financially disadvantaged people in our community to achieve 100 per cent support for capital funding. This applies to such groups as ethnic groups in the community, the Aboriginal community and the aged handicapped, who will indeed benefit from this provision whereby they can receive 100 per cent support as against the regular provision of 80 per cent. This is most welcome from the point of view of the Australian Democrats. As we have said, however, there is a great deal more to be done if we are to meet the needs of our aging population. Much of that will require very close and well considered State and Federal co-operation. Concern has been expressed at least by one organisation in Victoria about the replacement of the Federal-State co-ordinating committees by the aged care advisory committees. It will be very important that that State-Federal co-operation be continued and developed as further developments occur in care for the aged. We welcome the Minister's statement about the objective of this new arrangement for the setting up of the aged care advisory committees: to ensure that in planning residential care services full account is taken of the availability of community care services; the involvement of consumer bodies and service providers and the continuing and essential contribution of State authorities. Again, that is a significant comment by the Minister, and will need to be carried out if that co-operation is to be effective and further action of and innovative nature is to be taken. One of the areas that needs to be recognised at all levels and needs to be acted upon if we are to provide adequate service, both residential and in the community and the home, relates to the shortage of professional staff. For example, not enough medical practitioners are undertaking training in geriatric medicine and rehabilitation either under the auspices of the Royal Australian College of Physicians or at the diploma level through the Mount Royal course. Similarly, in the area of geriatric nursing or gerontology training for nurses, wider availability is needed and higher priority needs to be given to funding these courses. There is also a shortage of other allied health professionals with knowledge or experience in the care and understanding of the needs of the elderly. It is important that the obvious problems of recruitment and retention of professional staff are examined and faced so that these people do not continue to move out of the care of the aged and into acute health care services, leaving an enormous gap, particularly in rehabilitation and community care. Another area to which considerable attention should be paid is that of research into gerontological studies. It is interesting to note that in 1985-86 just a little over $1m of the National Health and Medical Research Council's $50.8m research allocation was allocated to research into the aging process. That area is of some concern, particularly in terms of Alzheimer's disease, which according to figures that have been quoted, is likely to affect some 200,000 people by the beginning of the next century. If one takes into account the families of those people, at least 500,000 Australians will be directly affected. It is an area in which we do not have enough knowledge and into which we need to put a great deal more effort. It is already a growing effort, but it needs to be recognised as a priority area, not just from the point of view of the aging but from that of the carers, very often the families. Another area where beneficial research could take place, and research which if successful could have a significant impact, is that of incontinence. It is recognised that some 70 per cent of patients in nursing homes have some degree of incontinence. It is often the straw that breaks the camel's back and leads to moving people from home care, where their families have been able to manage, into some form of institutional care. The increase in the number of hostel beds will probably bring about more appropriate placement of such people. If there were to be a breakthrough in research in prevention and treatment, I believe that it would have a significant impact on the costs of caring for the aged, not to mention the comfort of the aged and the ability of their families and other carers in the community to take care of them for longer and at less expense. Yet another area that needs to be examined arises from the finding of the report entitled `Census of the Aged in Institutions' which indicated that 85 per cent to 95 per cent of persons admitted to residential care are without a partner. It is interesting to consider the link between the lone aged and the institutionalised aged. We need to look at the reasons why so many persons without partners are admitted and the level of support that is available for those who care for their partners at home before institutionalisation takes place. The carer's pension was introduced in November 1985 and has gone some way to make it possible for those other than partners to take care of people-not just the aged but the disabled as well-in the home. This is seen by all, I am sure, as the best possible option. There are some problems, however. Social security or other pension beneficiaries are not eligible, and it has been said that perhaps the only group within social security beneficiaries who might benefit from a transfer to a carer's pension might be the unemployed, who upon transferring to the carer's pension would do better out of the fringe benefits available. A little lateral thinking in this respect could perhaps provide some initiative that would lead to the availability of more people who are prepared to be carers of the aged in the community and in their homes. In Victoria the Australian Democrats have developed a scheme known as the community services initiative, which gives the unemployed the opportunity to provide services in the community, such as those needed by the elderly who wish to remain in their own homes. It involves the provision of services such as the replacement of light bulbs, helping to make telephone calls, hanging out washing, driving the car, doing the shopping, simply visiting, reading, talking, all the points of social contact that are so important to people who are not able to do those things for themselves. They involve the carrying out of simple physical actions which anyone, certainly unskilled but caring people, could easily carry out. This scheme would operate by allowing the permissible income level of social security, particularly unemployment beneficiaries to be raised so that they could earn a higher income-in this case provided by the government in the form of a carer's income, which together with the unemployment benefit would reach the level of an award wage payable for such work. I mentioned Alzheimer's disease. I am told by people working in Alzheimer's support groups that there is support for families at local government level, but that a great many families who could use such support are not aware that it is available; that is probably a good thing because if all people were aware of the availability of services-this applies to Alzheimer's as well as to other problems-demand on those services would escalate to the point where in current circumstances there would not be enough people to provide those services. It seems to the Australian Democrats that a scheme such as the community services initiative, in which government would play its role in a much less expensive way than institutionalisation, would enable unemployed people to retain benefits, carry out the important community work of keeping elderly people in their homes, supporting and caring for them and helping them to cope with their daily lives. With that payment on top of their unemployment benefit, they would be able to earn an award wage for the work. If local government were to administer such a scheme, there would be a far larger pool of people to call upon to provide such services. In summary therefore, the Australian Democrats welcome the widening of options for the aged, which this Bill represents. We caution against any view that reductions can or should be achieved in the numbers of nursing home beds or in spending on care for the aged and we urge still further innovative actions to ensure the best possible care and the widest possible options for Australia's aging population. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(11.36) —The Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 is, to my great satisfaction, receiving a great deal of cross-party support in the Senate and not without very good reason. It comes to us as a result of many years of work, starting with the Auditor-General's report nearly 10 years ago on an efficiency audit of the Commonwealth administration of nursing homes programs. This was followed by a House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure report entitled `In a home or at home: accommodation and home care for the aged' and more recently a report by the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes entitled `Private nursing homes in Australia: their conduct, administration and ownership'. After years of seeming inactivity, we now have a fairly prompt response to that most recent report which was tabled at the end of 1984 and to the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review from the newly formed Department of Community Services, which appeared about six or eight months ago. That review was followed very promptly by this series of amendments to the nursing homes and hostels legislation. This is a long overdue approach to a problem which was becoming more and more difficult for the Australian Government to deal with in any rational fashion. In short, all those reports came to a consensus on a range of issues. One of the most remarkable of these was the haphazard manner in which nursing home programs have been launched in Australia, the lack of control that has been exerted over the years and the excessive concentration on institutional accommodation, rather than on the development of a comprehensive range of home and community care programs. Other issues included the failure to develop effective assessment and rehabilitative procedures in order to improve the efficiency of programs by matching services to individuals' particular requirements, the lack of co-ordination between various levels of government, including a lack of co-ordination in the area of inspection and maintenance of standards and in many parts of Australia the lack of concern of the third tier of government-that is local government-to become involved in the provision of these services. Finally and not least there was the inefficiency of the present funding mechanisms, including the lack of rationale for perpetuating both deficit-funded and participating nursing home arrangements. In the period from 1969 to 1984 we saw that uncontrolled growth in nursing home accommodation to which the review referred. In 1969 the number of nursing home beds per thousand population over the age of 65 was 39.1. In 1983 this increased to 47.4 beds per thousand of the population in that age group. That may or may not have been a reasonable growth, but during that period no assessment was ever made of what was a reasonable ratio of beds per thousand of the population; of whether we were looking at the population aged 65 and over or 70 and over; of whether the provision of beds was appropriate to the needs; and all the other issues that I have included in the consensus that has been reached by the three reviews that have been undertaken over the past 10 years. This uncontrolled growth also demonstrated the enormous increase in public expenditure on nursing home beds. The point can never be made too strongly or too frequently that the vast majority of our aged population is very healthy and very capable of looking after itself. When we talk about assisted accommodation of whatever degree, we are talking about only 7 per cent of our population over the age of 70. Another point should be made as well: As the population ages progressively, we have more healthy 70-year-olds. Certainly amongst our population aged 85 and over there are more severely handicapped people or elderly people who are restricted by their physical and mental aging, but amongst the 70 to 80-year age group there are many very healthy, lively, intelligent, capable and independent people. This is something of which I became aware when I, as a young woman involved in community activities, offered my services to the local meals on wheels association, only to find that the majority of the helpers were people in the age group that was normally expected to be dependent upon meals on wheels and other services of that nature. The specifics of this legislation go very closely to many of the recommendations of the most recent review-that from the Department of Community Services. In looking forward for the first time in a manner which seeks to provide in an appropriate way for our aging population, that review has made recommendations for the control of the development of nursing home beds, for the ratio that will be developed in comparison with hostels and less heavily supported accommodation. There were similar recommendations from the previous reports to which I have referred, so that we can now look towards the next five or 10 years and set some goals within overall maximum ratios. We seek within those time periods to ensure that nursing home beds are made available where they are needed and that where they are not needed different types of accommodation are made available. We are looking also to the fact that in many cases extensive nursing care growth requirements can be met by re-absorbing existing ordinary bed care stock. It may not be widely appreciated that in addition to the ordinary subsidy to which nursing homes are entitled for beds that are held by people in need of an ordinary level of nursing care, there is also an extensive bed subsidy of $42 a week for people who are in need of heavy nursing care. This tends to vary a great deal from State to State, as does the adequacy or otherwise of nursing home bed provision generally. For example, we see in Victoria a ratio of 39 nursing home beds per thousand of population, as against 54.7 in Western Australia. This means that the fewer beds per thousand of population in Victoria are more likely to be occupied by more heavily dependent patients. This is reflected by the fact that there is a higher ratio of trained nurses required in Victorian nursing homes, which leads again to the fact that historically a much higher subsidy has developed in that State. The disparities between the States are also of considerable concern. In the future extensive nursing bed requirements may certainly become much higher if we seek to accommodate a far higher proportion of our current nursing home population in much less heavily dependent accommodation. Ultimately, it may very well be that the nursing homes will be for extensive nursing care only, as for something much more closely allied to extensive nursing care than is the case at present. As we look carefully at the nursing home industry, we see that, dependent upon the State, the location and the cost of the nursing home beds, in many cases there are beds that are inappropriately occupied by people who would be much better catered for by much less heavily serviced care. The point has already been made on several occasions this morning that that is not only unnecessarily expensive and wasteful of resources but also is certainly of no assistance to the individual concerned, who should be encouraged in every possible way to maintain his or her independence, to maintain a lively interest in what is going on and not to be identified with a heavily dependent group of people. The comments made by Senator Peter Baume about the power of the Minister to redesignate beds under these amendments is a matter to which the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) will respond. But it seems to me that this really goes to the heart of the problem that has developed over the years-to the fact that the nursing home industry has developed not necessarily in response to the needs of populations but that other matters have intervened between those needs and the services that are provided. As the Senate is very well aware, much of the provision of nursing home care has been through the private enterprise sector. In many cases it has been the case that services have developed where that resource has been sought to be invested. Each of us is aware in each State of a suburb notorious for the high number of beds that have been provided within that sector. In Western Australia I suppose I look at Mount Lawley, an area where traditionally large old homes have been converted into nursing homes over the years, some appropriately and some not so appropriately. They have not necessarily developed in response to the actual needs of individuals in that area, but have developed far more from a range of accidents, including the properties available for sale and the socio-economic mix of that area, with perhaps more people able to afford private nursing home care. It is in cases like this, where there really is a very poor distribution of beds, or rather an inappropriate distribution of beds, that it may certainly be necessary for the Minister to step in and say: `In the course of rationalising what is going on in this region we are aware of the fact that, for example, there is no accommodation for very young people who may need nursing home attention'. This is one of the increasingly regrettable aspects of nursing home care: It is the appropriate care for very severely disabled young people; for example, those who have suffered from very severe head injuries as a result of road accidents. They may have no other opportunity of accommodation except in nursing homes and special provisions must be made for them. In the course of the inquiry of the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, we visited a most stimulating institution in Sydney called Austin which accommodates young people in a much less restricted way which is far more appropriate for them. Of course, they must be provided with education and training. Perhaps more than the elderly population, they must be provided with the stimulus that allows them to develop as individuals. Many of them can look forward to quite a long life, but in wheelchairs or in even more restrictive circumstances. For example, a particular region where there are no beds of this nature may very well be a matter that should concern the Minister and should lead to the recategorisation of beds in that area. Other services that are very scarce on the ground in many areas are those of particular use to migrants. The extra services that may be required by migrants probably go to the provision of staff who have language skills and who have extra knowledge of the cultural needs of particular groups of migrants. Once again, it may well be up to the Minister to ensure that in a particular area a more appropriate service is available to those people. Once again, in the course of our select committee inquiry, we were given evidence from the Sunshine area of Victoria that fairly recently four new nursing homes had been built but that none of them had been equipped with a range of services most appropriate for the people in that area, which included large numbers of elderly migrants who within the next 10 or 15 years would be looking for nursing home accommodation. Not only were those elderly people unable to afford the accommodation that had recently been provided in the area but also the accommodation was inappropriate. The migrant population would probably be forced to go to nursing homes or other accommodation away from their families without any assurance that their particular needs would be sensitively dealt with. Senator Peter Baume —We are not against the redesignation. We only ask that the owners request it. They can approach the Department. Senator GILES —I understand, Senator Baume. I was not taking issue with the points that the honourable senator made. I just wanted to emphasise the fact that the range of services provided is inadequate in far too many cases and that the planning simply has not been done in the past. That is a matter for which the Government should have considerable concern. As has also been mentioned this morning, the provision of particular care for elderly patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease leaves a great deal to be desired. This indeed may lead to considerable extra expense if the appropriate arrangements are to be made. The average dementia patient may well be highly ambulant and must regrettably be restricted to an area for his or her good. One of the most distressing aspects of my career as a trade union official regularly visiting nursing homes was to have the front door unlocked before I could go in. The door was not locked to keep me out; it was locked to keep the patients in. Nursing homes that are well equipped to deal with dementia patients typically have large gardens and the gardens are surrounded by high fences-again not a very palatable state of affairs but one that is absolutely essential for the safety of those people. Of course, within those high fences one must have very well trained staff-people with the time, the sensitivity and the skills required to ensure that the dementia patients have a level of existence which is as valuable to them as possible, with the least number of restraints and the largest possible range of good care, and high quality of life. These are matters that we all seek to achieve. They will not be achieved without considerable expense, and much of the emphasis of these amendments is towards redistributing the very large amount of money that has been spent over the years which, as we are all aware, has gone in many cases into an inappropriate range of care. I should like to touch briefly on another paper that has come to us fairly recently-the draft discussion paper on quality of care in nursing homes that has been prepared by Catherine Rhys-Hearn, following a very long, detailed and scholarly survey of means of establishing measures for standards of nursing home care. This has been breaking very new ground in many respects. Quantifying and qualifying the level of care of individuals is not something which is done quickly or easily. The report itself is worthy of close scrutiny. In a few minutes, I certainly cannot do it justice. But I note that clause 7 of the Bill points briefly to a very vexed question, one that has been dealt with in industrial arbitration courts at various times. The definition of `nursing home care' is what I am referring to-or, rather, the way in which one can actually interpret a statement which talks about nursing home care or nursing care. I note, anyway, that at least the explanatory memorandum goes to something of a tautology where it states: The definition of `nursing home care' in sub-section 4 (1) of the Principal Act provides that `nursing home care' means accommodation and nursing care of a kind provided in a nursing home and includes any prescribed service of a kind provided in a nursing home. This amendment simplifies the mechanism contained in the definition for approving services. This is another matter that will no longer be prescribed by regulation but, much more appropriately, by being specified by the Minister by notice in writing published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The question, `What is nursing?', has been approached in many different ways. I cannot express any surprise at the tautology which has resulted here. We have tried in the past to defend the right of a nurse assistant, for example, to an increased rate of pay by describing her duties within a nursing home. It is very clear that in many cases those duties are extremely responsible. Of course, they are always supervised by the registered general nurse, but they go to all those nurturing services to which patients are entitled but which, in many cases, are seen in the wider community as the sort of care that any of us would give at home to our families, even when they are in good health, and certainly when they are sick, and certainly to the aged in our families when they are in need of that extra care. As Senator Powell has said, one of the most problematic characteristics of aging may be the development of incontinence. It is a matter which in the last few years has begun to receive the sort of scientific approach that has been lacking in the past. But these are the matters that are all dealt with very well and thoroughly and very professionally by Catherine Rhys-Hearn in her discussion paper on quality of care in nursing homes. It should not be too long in the future before we are able to say quite categorically that this range of patients with this particular need requires this particular number of registered nursing hours of care per day, that those registered nursing hours should be supported by a certain number of so-called untrained nursing hours, and that in addition-this is going a little more widely than these amendments-that nursing care should also be supported by a range of domestic services within any institution. Too often in the past the nurses, both registered and otherwise, have had to spend a great deal of their time in cleaning, washing, cooking and other duties which are outside the immediate care of the patient and which deprive nurses of time to spend on high quality caring for the individual. One other point that I should like to make, which goes also to questions that have been raised in all the reviews over the years, concerns the matter of developing some sort of complaints procedure. Too often elderly people, particularly, who spend their latter years in institutions of one sort or another have been without any advocate for their own particular needs. As Senator Powell said, very many of them are without a partner, very many of them are without any close relatives at all. The question of providing an advocate for individuals in this position is one that certainly concerned the Select Committee and I understand that it is being dealt with within the Department of Community Services in consultation with the Attorney-General's Department. Of course, in most cases well run services have by definition a very good relationship with their client, and the vast majority of nurses and administrators in nursing homes are sensitive, just and sympathetic people. Too often, though, the consumer is frightened to complain, feels powerless and thinks that any complaint may be followed by an eviction order-in many cases, of course, quite incorrectly; but the perception is there. In many cases they are unaware of the fact that they are not getting the degree of care that they deserve. In many cases, too, the relatives feel powerless to take any sort of action. We are looking at various advocacy models, not just in the residential context, and we are actively investigating options through a range of innovative projects. This will also apply to our disability services program, where again we have a very large clientele of people who in the past have held those same characteristics as the aged-an unwillingness to complain, a feeling of power- lessness, and perhaps a lack of knowledge about the level of care to which they are entitled. Perhaps I may say once again how pleased I am that we are receiving such wide support, not only in the Senate but in the community generally, for the amendments to the Act and for the very wide range of recommendations upon which they are based. It has taken a very long time, but it seems to me that within the next five or 10 years we can look forward to a range of supportive mechanisms within Australian society which will be far more appropriate to our aging population. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(12.04) —We are discussing the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill, but there are some aspects of it about which I should like to speak briefly. For some time I was a member of the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, and I had the opportunity of moving around a great deal of Australia and looking at nursing homes, and at hospitals and hostels. I do want to pay tribute to private enterprise, to the churches and the benevolent societies who do so much in this area of the provision of nursing homes and hostels. I like some of the set-ups the churches provide, where they have three types of living-first of all independent living, then hostel living, and then nursing home care-all together in one area. I believe that as people get older and feel that they need to go into a home, that is the ideal way to do it. Perhaps it is appropriate to say those few words of commendation today while we are discussing this legislation. We have a tremendous responsibility to look after the aged in our community. There is no doubt at all that our population is aging, and that presents an enormous challenge for the future. In 1901 only 4 per cent of the population was aged 65 years or more. In 1981 that figure had risen to 14 per cent. The Australian Bureau of Statistics in its most recent series projects that the figure will increase to 16 per cent in the year 2001 and 22 per cent in 2021. Of course, there is a strong relationship between increasing age and the likelihood of admission to a hostel or nursing home. Of the population aged 85 years and over, 36.7 per cent are cared for in residential accommodation, 11.5 per cent in hostels and 25.2 per cent in nursing homes. Figures indicate that there will be a sharp increase in the need to provide care services for aged persons over the next three decades. In particular, there will be a rapid increase from 1991 in most dependent aged groups. Consistent with this trend, expenditure on the aged is projected to rise by more than 50 per cent in real terms between the years 2001 and 2021. One fact which will present difficulties is that, because of the slow rate of increase in the number of children being born, the working population cannot be counted on to provide sufficient revenue to cover the increasing public costs of the aged. Even since 1973 the nursing home expenditure increase has been greater than increases in the consumer price index and movements in average weekly earnings. Since 1973 there has been a 278 per cent increase in expenditure per average bed day in hostels, and a 606 per cent increase in nursing homes. International comparisons show that Australia is among the high provision countries, although not the highest. This legislation has a number of parts. Part I is a preliminary and introductory passage. Part II amends the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act. It affords the Minister discretion to provide up to 100 per cent instead of 80 per cent of capital funding for financially disadvantaged groups. It also increases funding for people receiving hostel care services, personal care services and respite care services in hostels. Parts III and IV amend the National Health Act and the Nursing Homes Assistance Act respectively. Control of the growth of the number of nursing home beds is obtained by allowing the Minister to specify a maximum number of subsidised beds in each State and Territory or in a region of a State or Territory. Hostel care subsidies will rise by 19.3 per cent, the aim being to fund a strategy to restructure improved residential and community care services for aged people through a shift to hostel-based services. Both the report of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes-the Giles report-and the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure-the McLeay report-criticised the Government's administration of nursing homes as being ad hoc and unco-ordinated. Senator Grimes, in his capacity as Minister for Community Services, instigated a review and in April the report of the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review was tabled in the Senate. This report stated that there was too great an emphasis on nursing homes and inadequate support for hostels, and that this imbalance should be corrected. I support the concept of moving away from institutionalised care and encouraging home and community care so as to enable the elderly a more independent style of living. However, I believe that we have to recognise the need to provide more money for, for example, the Blue Nursing Service, Meals on Wheels and community care. I had the opportunity recently to go to the annual meeting of the Brisbane central area of the Blue Nursing Service. That meeting expressed the view that this was something that needed to be looked at. We need to be concerned also with the reduction in the number of nursing home beds. Senator Crowley —There is no reduction. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —We are trying to make more hostel beds available. All I am saying is that if we are to make more hostel beds available we have to be careful that we do not reduce the opportunity for people who are in need of nursing home care to find a nursing home bed. We have to watch out that we do not make hostels into institutions that provide a type of nursing home care. I find that the people in hostels are fairly mobile and are able to get around; they only need people to look after them, in a caretaking capacity, and to be able to press a bell if they need attention during the night. We have to be careful that we do not put people into hostels who perhaps need care by nursing sisters during the night, which would require the hostels to pay extra wages. We have to look at this. I believe that the provision of respite beds is worth while. I am sure many people who keep their aged or invalid parents at home find that the provision of respite beds for just two or three weeks or even a month is wonderful because it gives them a chance to have a little holiday. I certainly appreciate that the Government is concerned that nursing home benefits have not been utilised properly, but we have to make sure that the best interests of the aged are given priority. The Minister suggested in his speech that perhaps some 25 per cent of placements in nursing homes were inappropriate. I am not sure whether that figure is correct but it is important when dealing with the aged and the sick to err on the side of generosity and compassion. I listened to Senator Giles speaking about old folk who had Alzheimer's disease and dementia. There is certainly a need for extra nursing home beds for people who have such problems. One aspect of the Bill concentrates power in the hands of the Minister. I appreciate that there has to be a central governing body, but it is important that there not be such centralised power that the needs of the individual and perhaps isolated communities are ignored or not properly considered. I believe that this will be taken into consideration by the Minister. Queensland, of course, is a highly decentralised State, and demographically different regions have different requirements. A large number of elderly citizens are coming to settle in Queensland each year and that has put a further increase on the demand for nursing homes in the south-east region of Queensland. Actually, I was glad to learn that there will be increases in nursing home benefits. I received a letter from our shadow Minister, Senator Peter Baume, who gave us that information and said that there was certainly a large gap payment that was causing many problems for people in nursing homes. So these benefits have been increased and that, of course, is very good. One thing that I was a little disappointed in, was the fact that in Queensland and Tasmania the amounts are much less than in some of the other States. I support the notion of moving away from an ad hoc approach to nursing care. The industry is crying out for a needs-based planning approach. It provides for a change in the existing balance between providing intensive care, through nursing homes, and providing appropriate community services and hostel options. I hope that the Government ensures that the welfare of the frail and the aged is the paramount consideration in this shift of emphasis. As I said earlier, I would hate to see a situation where very sick patients are put into hostel-type accommodation where there is perhaps little or no specialised nursing care for them. It is one thing to streamline the operations of nursing home care in the community, but it is another to do so at the expense of the needs of the frail and aged in the community. However, the Opposition parties support this Bill and commend it to the Senate. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(12.16) —I, as a member of the Government, am pleased to add my support to this piece of legislation. I think the Government needs to be commended for it. I am also pleased to note that the Opposition, in making its contribution to this debate, in large part is supportive of the general aims and principles in this legislation. It was interesting to hear Senator Giles run us through the history of inquiries in the nursing homes area and I think the Government needs to be congratulated. Perhaps one could say the time was ripe. We have had the inquiries and have found any amount of agreement concerning the importance of assessing the needs of the population and setting limits on the maximum number of nursing home beds and so on. Perhaps the time was ripe but I think it should also be noted that the Government, and the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) in particular, had the will as well. We have had a fairly speedy response from the Minister for Community Services not only on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review but also on this legislation which will amend the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954, the National Health Act 1953 and the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 and make a number of changes in line with the general principles enshrined in this legislation. Under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 the amendments will allow the Commonwealth to make grants to eligible organisations to meet the capital costs of homes for aged or disabled people. In particular, it will allow the Commonwealth to provide up to 100 per cent of funding for disadvantaged groups. I think this is very important where, for example, such groups may not be able to find or raise funds to match Commonwealth subsidies. So the Commonwealth, aware of the needs of such groups of people, has provided the option that 100 per cent of the funding of capital costs can be provided by it. Under this Act there has also been an increase in personal care subsidies. These figures will actually increase from $7.80 per day to $8.40 per day from 22 October 1986 and there will be a further increase to $11 per day from 6 May 1987-a total sum of $77 per week, which is a considerable amount in terms of the provision of personal care subsidies. There are other provisions in this legislation for payment to people living in hostels and I will not spell out all the details. Changes or amendments to the National Health Act 1953 and the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 will allow the Government to establish growth control arrangements over the approval in principle and the approval mechanisms for new nursing homes and new beds in existing nursing homes. I commend Senator Peter Baume for making it absolutely clear that the Opposition understands that there is not to be a decrease in nursing home beds. I simply reiterate that because Senator Bjelke-Petersen's words could have led to a misunderstanding. There is not to be a decrease in nursing home beds; there is to be a control in the rate of growth in new nursing home beds. As Senator Giles spelt out, that is entirely consistent with the thrust of the three reports that she mentioned in this area. Again Senator Baume was quite clear on that. His understanding, which is my understanding and that of the Government, is that there will be no reduction in nursing home beds. But under these amendments the Government will have the ability to set maximums on ordinary beds and special needs beds both in the States and in the regions. This will provide a cost saving over time and those savings will be redistributed to the cost increases under the hostel program. In fact, essentially the amendments have come out as revenue neutral. But I think it is terribly important to say, once again, that there will not be a reduction in nursing home beds; there will be a reduction in the growth rate of nursing home beds. As well as setting maximums for regions and special needs, the proposals under these amendments will allow a more rational distribution of nursing home beds-again I take up the points raised by my colleague Senator Giles and some of the Opposition speakers-to meet the changes in demography and the changes in the circumstances of communities so that we are not left with a surplus of nursing home beds where there are no people but have the flexibility to adjust the provision of nursing home beds to those areas where people have a need for them. In short, there is an emphasis on trying to provide the nursing home beds as near as possible to where the people who need them live and that is consistent with the other general thrusts of this legislation which I will come to in a moment. The amendments to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 allow for an increase in capital grants. That cost is assessed to be $0.5m in 1986-87 rising to $2.8m in 1987-88. As well, the increases in subsidy levels and the introduction of automatic indexation mean a cost of $5.6m in 1986-87 rising to $26.5m in 1987-88. Under the amendments to the National Health Act 1953 and the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 the introduction of growth controls in the nursing home area will provide savings of $4m in 1986-87 and $27.7m in 1987-88. If we put those costs and savings against each other we see that the legislation will mean that the net financial impact is more or less financially neutral. It will certainly not be neutral in terms of its effect on the community. I wanted to make some general points and pick up Senator Baume's point on the philosophy of this legislation. The Opposition has said it welcomes this. As the reports have stated and as Senator Giles has spelt out, the Government is very concerned to provide optimal care for both our aged and our disabled people. It is important to realise that not all disabled people are necessarily aged. It is important to recognise that a number of very young people have disabilities which require very extensive and continual nursing care. While an emphasis is currently moving towards rehabilitation of all disabled people at all ages, not all disabled people are old. I think we have to recognise that and remember it. In the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, of which I was a member, it became clear that there was quite a lot of difficulty and dissatisfaction for young disabled people when the only provision of care available for them was in an elderly persons' nursing home. There was just not sufficient appropriate company, apart from anything else. The service of nursing care may have been adequate, and very often it was, but the community surround for those young people was insufficient. The recommendations in the report urged the separation of young disabled people from the more aged community. I understand that the process of encouraging young disabled people out of aged care provisions and into the community, rather than even to their own nursing home, but as much as possible toward independent living or assisted living in the community, is well under way. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) is very committed to encouraging that to happen as much as possible. The other point that needs to be stressed is that many people who are sufferers of Alzheimer's disease are not elderly. One of the shocking statistics is that people in their 40s can show early signs of the onset of Alzheimer's disease. I think we have to take a little care, when we talk about legislation in this area, to appreciate that we are talking about a population that is much wider than frail aged people, who may be 75 or 85 years of age. A number of the people needing nursing home care or hostel accommodation are much younger than the aged population to which I have just referred. We have to be careful about that. Another point which Senator Giles raised and which I think needs to be considered in this area too is that there is a real complexity in providing services for aged or disabled people. For instance, people suffering from senility or Alzheimer's disease-a distinction I draw between those two categories of people-are not in need of hour by hour nursing care. Very often these people are more than able to be up and about, to feed themselves, to do their laundry and in all sorts of ways to look after their own personal needs. Their principal problem is that they need to be restrained. It is hard to know what their diagnostic difficulty is, but they are certainly not able to keep themselves in one place; they wander and they may not be aware of where they are in the world. They may not know their address and they may not remember where they have come from or how they got there. Very often the care they need is some kind of constraint on where they go; that is, they need to have a wall around the perimeter of the place in which they are living and, as Senator Giles said, locks on doors, which is distressing for us. In some ways, it is more distressing for us than for the people who are confined. The point that needs to be made though is that their principal need is for constraint of that sort, not hour by hour nursing care. Very often these people are not in need of the high intensity nursing care that some of the totally disabled and fully bed-ridden people need. This brings me to another point touched on by Senator Giles: How do we assess the needs of care? It is extraordinarily difficult. Under the home and community care provisions legislation some effort has been made towards addressing that matter by way of assessment teams and making sure that people's needs for care are appropriately matched to the provision of care, if possible. Even within a nursing home or hostel a considerable range of services are needed. For example, people may be incontinent-to pick up the case mentioned by Senator Powell-but for all other reasons perfectly able to manage by themselves. Again, such people do not need high intensity nursing care but may in fact have come to a stage when they cannot manage in their own home or their relatives cannot manage with them at home. So the provision of nursing care for them is very different from that for a totally bed-ridden person who may have had a stroke, some sort of cerebral accident, or a motor car accident. I think that is very important. Senator Peter Baume raised the point that it is important to have the provisions of amendments open to parliamentary scrutiny and not simply available to the Minister to change by way of gazettal. I spent some time with the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills this morning going through those points and taking note of the Minister's response. I understand that the Minister will address those points at the end of the second reading debate. However, I know from my own experience that, while there are very clearly defined regulations, they can be a constraint on the optimal care and provision of care for people. It is not too long ago-and I am sure Senator Walters will recognise this-when regulations required that for people to be eligible for nursing home benefits they had to be bed-ridden. What happened in nursing homes was that people were encouraged to be bed-ridden. They were kept in bed; they were not encouraged towards programs of rehabilitation and were not encouraged to be up and about or to do for themselves at all. Under the regulations, they would not have been eligible for a subsidy. We have a tension between the needs of legislation and regulations, or proposed changes under that legislation, to be subject to proper regard or scrutiny by Parliament but at the same time to be flexible enough to provide for optimal provision of care for patients. I know that those two matters are in a bit of tension in this legislation. I do not think that I should come down on one side or the other, but in the area that we are talking about, and from my own experience, I have found it very distressing to see regulations leading to less than proper provision of care for elderly or disabled people. I am hopeful that whatever solution may need to be found, if there is the need for a solution or further discussion between the Opposition about this sort of matter, as much flexibility is allowed to the Minister and to the legislation to enable flexibility at the level of provision of care so that the matron in charge, the doctor prescribing instructions or the family who want things to happen can be clear that they will not lose subsidies and that there will not be constraints on them providing optimal provisions for the care of such people in nursing homes in particular but also, to some extent, in hostels. I think that is really very important. It is very encouraging to see the changes in the emphasis of care in nursing homes over the last five years or so, perhaps even a little longer, going to such things as the rehabilitation of elderly people. In times past, if an elderly person was admitted to a nursing home, quite clearly there was a feeling of `That is it. We now give up and from Sunday to Sunday we visit and talk to the elderly person'. That is just not the emphasis any more. In fact, both public and private nursing homes are providing rehabilitation programs matched to the needs of the people so that a number of elderly people, who may be admitted for short term surgery or for a stay in a nursing home subsequent to a stroke, are in fact able to return to independent living. This is to be welcomed and is very heartening. People are not being written off once they get into a nursing home. This legislation very much endorses that sort of principle because it goes to flexible provision of where nursing home beds and hostel beds are and encouragement to support the principle of helping people to live independently where they prefer to live, which is very often where they have been living up to this point. Encouragement of independent living is important. As people become older and more frail some very simple things are beyond their capacity. For example, as was mentioned by Senator Powell, the changing of a light bulb is very difficult for a person with arthritis or a frail, older person, but the simple provision of a new light bulb means that such a person can continue to live very adequately in his or her own home. The support to this legislation which goes under the home and community care provisions and through a number of initiatives from various local governments is to be very much welcomed and encouraged. The thrust of the legislation is along the lines that we want to help people to live independently and we want to help them to live where they prefer to live, which is usually at home. Importantly, we have to help families of a relative of an older or disabled person to manage with such a person at home. That goes to two points. One is the provision of sufficient community services. For example, ramps might be necessary at home to help somebody with a wheelchair; there may be a need to reconstruct access to a house for cars and so on, or access within a house; there may be a need, too, to provide some kind of respite for such an aged or handicapped person in a hostel. Provisions are made under the amendments in this Bill to allow that to happen. It is very important that we support the relatives. I am particularly concerned about that because much of the care in this area has been provided in the past by relatives-very often women-in the home. The quite massive contribution that women have made in caring for elderly or disabled people in their families over time has to be acknowledged. It is very important that we do not take away opportunities for people to continue to be generous in that way. A lot of people still prefer to do so. I guess other honourable senators could name as well as I could many people who are willing to make that kind of commitment to their relatives. It is very good that this legislation endorses that and provides for respite if it is necessary so that people can continue as much as possible to support their relatives at home, if that is the preference within the family. It is very important to appreciate that under the hostel provisions we have a second tier almost-we know that certain people now need some kind of generalised supervision or care but are fairly much able to live independently within those broader constraints. For example, it may be difficult for somebody to clean leaves out of gutters or maintain a household, but once the outside-the walls and the roof-and the payment of rent and so on are looked after a person within such hostel accommodation is able to live perfectly adequately quite independently. I am delighted that the legislation endorses and enshrines that kind of encouragement to people in our community. As I have said, the nursing home bed provision will continue. The points have been quite well made that there is a need for nursing home beds in this community, and that need will continue. Hopefully we can remove from nursing home beds those people who are most inappropriately placed there. Indeed, I think it was the report of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes that found that something like 25 per cent of people could be assessed as being inappropriately placed in nursing home beds. If those beds are freed up by a more appropriate placement of people in hostel accommodation or even, with rehabilitation and encouragement, by returning people home to independent living, while our need for nursing home beds will continue it will do so at a slower rate. When I became a member of the Senate I joined the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes and had the benefit of the information that was provided to it in submissions and evidence that was sought by that inquiry. It fitted very well with the work that I had been doing prior to coming to the Senate. I am delighted to see that work being fulfilled, at least in part. I think the disability legislation and the home and community care legislation are to be bracketed with this legislation. I am delighted that we have this legislation in place to show clearly the Government's commitment to the recommendations of the Committee following its investigations in that area of nursing homes and hostels. I commend the Government for introducing this legislation. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.40) —The Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 is, I believe, the first step in a much needed review of government-assisted accommodation for the aged. It is very pleasing that the Opposition is in full agreement with the aim of that legislation, which is to increase the variety of services to the aged in the area of residential accommodation and community services. Like Senator Crowley, I was a member of one of the committees mentioned by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) in his second reading speech, the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes. We both had quite an opportunity to go around the country and become very aware of the problems faced by Australian citizens as they get older. However we did not need to go around Australia to know-we knew it from our own experiences-that the aged want to stay at home as long as they possibly can. We have all seen these problems as our relatives have grown old. We all know the traumas of an elderly aunt or elderly parents having to go into a nursing home. Considerable traumas are associated with that. As Senator Crowley said so rightly, previously it was a case of `Once I go into a nursing home that is it'. As we get older our capability of looking after ourselves gradually deteriorates. It does not usually happen as a result of a grave illness; it happens over a number of years. We get to the stage at which we are unable to look after our homes properly. This has already been referred to. We become unable to get out of the bath with any assurance. In my early days here, when I was boarding with an elderly woman in Barton, she used to say: `I can always have a bath when you are up here in Canberra because I know that at least you are coming home at night and if I cannot get out you will be there to pull me out'. These are the worries associated with people getting old. Then it goes from not being able to look after one's home and garden to not being able to look after oneself-one's hygiene, cooking and general care-and the worries that are attached to that. As we travelled around we were told by many of the elderly that they would like an alarm system so that if they were to fall off a stool while trying, for instance, to replace a light bulb in the kitchen they could make sure that someone would know that they had fallen, so that they would not be lying there overnight or perhaps for days. At the moment there is some community care, but we have not really scratched the surface. The most common form of community care at the moment is meals on wheels. I, too, have served on meals on wheels. When one works in the community taking around the hot meal for the day the elderly person to whom one takes it does not want just that meal; he or she very desperately needs someone to whom to chat. I used to find it very difficult just to deliver that meal and walk out. Senator Gietzelt —To communicate. Senator WALTERS —They wanted to communicate, as Senator Gietzelt says. There is the need for communication. The person delivering meals on wheels is probably the only person to go into their homes for the whole of the day. The need to communicate is really very great. Such people will also ask one to do little jobs for them, such as to post a letter-little things that they cannot do themselves. That need for communication and for someone to enter their homes once a day is very, very important to them. It depends on the State, and on the local government usually, how much assistance in the home is really available to them. Some of the States and local governments have moved in these areas to a considerable extent. Some of the local governments provide quite a degree of home assistance to the elderly; others have not been able to move in that area at all. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance as Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask whether the Minister is aware that the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure says: Taxation revenue losses through non-detection of total taxpayer incomes could conceivably amount to several billion dollars each year. Is the Minister further aware that the Committee says that, in large measure, this situation `can simply be attributed to the Australian Taxation Office's own internal inadequacies'? I ask the Minister whether he agrees with the Committee that the more efficient use of existing laws and procedures could return more revenue than the combined total of the fringe benefits tax and the alleged savings from the proposed identity card? Senator WALSH —One thing one must admire occasionally, I think, is the effrontery of these people who sit opposite-the effrontery of these people who have just declared themselves to be on the side of the tax evaders, protecting the tax evaders in opposition as they did in government. To have the effrontery to ask questions-- Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. My point of order, Mr President, is that the Minister is starting Question Time very badly, in breach of the Standing Orders, and is debating the question. Senator Gareth Evans —Wimp. Senator Ryan —Wimp. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will withdraw that remark. Senator Gareth Evans —We withdraw. Senator Ryan —We withdraw. The PRESIDENT —I suggest that everyone settle down. If we were playing rugby league we might put someone in the sin bin for five minutes. Senator Chaney —Mr President, would you mind using examples from Australian rules? I do not understand your admonition. My point is that the Minister has simply started obviously with no intention of dealing with the facts in the question but simply of debating it. I ask you to remind him of the Standing Orders and, if he insists on debating the question, to sit him down. The PRESIDENT —I will not uphold the point of order at this stage, but I ask Senator Walsh to heed Senator Chaney's remarks. Senator WALSH —This Government is committed to stamping out tax evasion. We have made several attempts since we have been in government to put retrospective legislation through the Senate which would take from tax evaders the ill-gotten gains that they had achieved under the previous Government. Of course, all of those attempts have been resisted by the Liberal and Country parties, by half the Australian Democrats and by Senator Harradine. One of the more notorious-notorious in terms of principle but not terribly important quantitatively, of course-was the way in which that unholy alliance ganged up to protect that pair of crooks, the Kellys, who had been operating a cherry-picker scheme. It was one of the more outrageous examples of a cherry-picker scheme whereby the Kelly brothers had conspired to defraud the Commonwealth revenue and-- Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order. Again the Minister is not addressing himself to the question at all. The question related to a report of the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee in which specific statements were made about the present administration of the tax laws under this Government. The Minister clearly is not prepared to face up to the realities of maladministration under his own administration and that of his Government, but I ask you, Mr President, to remind him that this is Question Time and he is under some obligation to direct his remarks to the question which has been raised and not to the latest bit of diatribe that he has come into the place prepared to deliver. The PRESIDENT —Order! I would ask the Minister not to engage in debate of the matter. The Minister in answering the question, of course, can use analogies, but I ask him to refrain from debating the matter and come to the question that has been directed to him by Senator Chaney. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President, I have only seen the Press reports. I have not seen the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee report. But, to anybody who has looked seriously at taxation policy at all, it is very clear that two things must be done in order to eliminate tax evasion-or to go very close to eliminating it. First, we have to have an effective identity card system; in other words, the Australia Card, which the Opposition is committed to opposing. Of course, in light of the Opposition's being pushed around by the New Right, as it is, it is not surprising that it is opposing it. The second requirement is a credible threat of retrospective legislation. If any further evidence was required of the need for that, I think it was disclosed on the front page of the Melbourne Age a couple of weeks ago in an article written by Mr McCrann. Mr McCrann, at least in matters where his political bias does not cloud his judgment, is, I think, a very reliable journalist about facts such as that. Mr McCrann alleged that there has been a trans-Tasman tax swindle under which companies with interests in both countries have claimed in both countries tax deductions on interest paid. If that is correct-the facts are being checked out, I understand-it demonstrates that Part IVa, which Mr Howard boasts of having introduced, is not adequate to eliminate fraud against Commonwealth revenue and the only way to really effectively eliminate that sort of fraud is a credible threat of retrospective legislation. In other words, the Opposition claims to be committed to stamping out tax evasion, but everything it actually does, in the way of votes in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, has the effect of protecting tax evaders. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. It follows the Minister's concentration of his answer on new measures which the Government might take to increase tax collections. My question related to the existing machinery which is available to the Australian Taxation Office and the existing law. I ask him whether he agrees that the Taxation Office is not utilising many of the measures which are already available to it-for example, its existing power to obtain details of all interest payments from institutions. Senator WALSH —I have said that I have only seen some brief newspaper reports; I have not seen that Committee report, so I do not think that I should pass judgment on it. But I do recall that the Commissioner of Taxation, year after year in his annual reports in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, put out an entreaty for more resources in order to more effectively administer the tax laws. Just fortuitously, I have here today the infamous telephone book-the John Howard record, as Treasurer-which Mr Howard was forced to table in 1982 and which contains, I think, a total of some 28 entreaties from the Taxation Commissioner to the then Treasurer to do something about enforcing the payment of tax by certain manipulative and privileged groups in the country. We all know what his response to that was. He sat on his hands for five years while the corporate tax base was eroded to the point where it was in danger of disappearing altogether. Senator BLACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance as Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article on the front page of this morning's Australian Financial Review outlining the early history of Elders IXL and, in particular, the roles of Liberal Party Treasurer, John Elliott, and three associates in founding that corporation? Does the article say that the process of building up Elders IXL began with a $2 company, Akma Pty Ltd, that the four individuals featured in the article each began with assets of between a few hundred dollars and $5,000, and that each is now variously estimated to be worth between $8m and $100m? Is their success story a positive indicator of the opportunities available for investment in Australia? Senator WALSH —I did see that story. Indeed, I do find it very hard to understand just where Mr Elliott is and why. The only way I think that I have been able to reconcile the various conflicting statements by Mr Elliott-or at least, the conflicts between the statements he makes and the things he does-is by recognising that sometimes he is acting for himself and sometimes he is a mouthpiece for the Liberal Party of Australia. As I said, I have seen that report, and it just adds to the confusion about Mr Elliott. For example, when he said that there was no incentive to invest in Australia, I thought initially it might just have been that too much Fosters was responsible for that. But if he really believed that, of course, this begs the question of why he spent hundreds of millions of dollars of Elders IXL shares buying himself a seat on the BHP board. He cannot have it both ways. If there is no incentive to invest in Australia-if he really believes that-he should be charged with breach of duty as a company director for using Elders IXL shares to buy himself a seat on the BHP board in the way that he did a while ago. I suspect that Mr Elliott is pretty dirty on the Government because he will no longer be able to get away with the sort of de facto embezzlement he pulled in the Henry Jones takeover, which was written about by Terry McCrann in the Age on 15 April this year. McCrann wrote: Shortly before Elders Smith unveiled its bid for Henry Jones, the leading executives in Henry Jones outlayed $19,000 in taking up one cent paid shares under an executive incentive scheme. The Elders Smith offer delivered a clear tax free profit of $4.16m to those executives. Mr Elliott himself cleared $657,000 on a $3,000 outlay. He will no longer be able to pick up tax free capital gains of that magnitude. Whether there is incentive to invest in Australia or not, one thing there certainly is incentive to do is to become a director of Elders IXL. It is noted in today's Adelaide Advertiser that the directors have just magnanimously increased by 50 per cent, from $400,000 to $600,000, the remuneration that they may receive as directors. Senator WATSON —Given the interest of the Minister for Finance in the collection of taxation, I refer him to the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee's finding that the Australian Taxation Office's record in implementing new technologies, to use its word, has been deplorable. Is the Minister aware that in the past three financial years the Office has failed to spend about $39m allocated to it for computing equipment and associated facilities? Why did this happen? Does the Minister not agree with the Committee that the Australian Taxation Office's approach to data processing has left it with a totally inadequate processing facility, causing significant losses of taxation revenue and imposing unnecessary costs on the taxpayer? Senator WALSH —I have a note from the Treasurer about that section of the report which says, among other things, that the report criticised the Taxation Office's failure to expend the funds allocated to it for computer equipment over a number of years. The figure of $49m shown in the report and tabling statements is inaccurate. A note in the report shows that the true figure per the report should be close to $39m, which I think is the figure Senator Watson used. Senator Watson —Yes, $39m was the figure I used. Senator WALSH —I know, but it is worth noting that there are inaccuracies in the report-pretty fundamental inaccuracies. Further, the figures in the prior years include a doubling up. Amounts for certain projects were carried forward in successive years, so another heavy qualification has to be put on that figure. In addition, there was an Australian supplier which was unable to deliver equipment to schedule. Despite this failure, there was pressure to persist with the contract. Those problems with the supplier meant that the allocation could not be spent in the year. The two major areas of underspending are the prescribed payments system and the replacement data entry system. The data entry system money has now been spent and the system installed, but the PPS has not yet been concluded. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I and other senators have received representations from the Returned Services League and other ex-service men's and women's organisations strongly opposing any attempts to amalgamate the Department of Veterans' Affairs with other departments. Will the Minister give an assurance to this chamber that amalgamation or incorporation along the lines rumoured will not occur under this present Government? Senator GIETZELT —It is true, as Senator Tate suggests, that there was Press conjecture and speculation some months ago suggesting that there was a master plan for the amalgamation of departments. That caused some anxiety in the veterans' community and in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This led to a question being asked of the Prime Minister yesterday at the weekly meeting of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. The Prime Minister gave that Caucus meeting a complete assurance that under this Government there would be no amalgamation of the Department. I hope that that will allay some of the suspicions and anxieties that may have existed. I wish I could give the same assurances, however, to veterans as to what would happen under a Liberal-National coalition government, having regard to some of the decisions made at the Thredbo conference of the Liberal Party last weekend. That meeting agreed to establish a super-ministry concept and in those circumstances, as many business organisations suggested, the Department of Veterans' Affairs would be amalgamated. The threat comes not from this Government, but from the Opposition. Senator SIDDONS —Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate give an unqualified assurance that the Government will proceed with the imputation legislation as promised? If so, when will the draft legislation be available for study, and when will it be introduced into the Parliament? Senator BUTTON —I give an assurance that the imputation legislation will be introduced, but I am unable to give a precise answer on the second part of the question. I shall obtain an answer and advise Senator Siddons as soon as possible. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and refers to the recent proposal to build a high temperature toxic waste incinerator 40 kilometres from Tennant Creek. Has the Minister noted the statement made by Dr Mark Stafford-Smith on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Territory Extra program that 20 kilos a year of extremely poisonous chemicals would be released into the environment from a plant such as this? What feasibility and environmental impact studies are being carried out concerning this proposal? What action has the Government taken following the strong opposition to the plant voiced by the organisation representing the Tennant Creek Aboriginal town camp, the Julalikan Council? Is it correct that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment believes that this incinerator should be a private commercial venture? Senator RYAN —Hazardous waste management within Australia, including siting and regulation of hazardous waste disposal facilities, is primarily the responsibility of State and Territory governments. Responsibilities of the Commonwealth Government in this field relate par- ticularly to international aspects-for example, imports and exports of hazardous wastes-and the encouragement and facilitation of a national approach to waste management where appropriate. There is no facility in Australia capable of destroying highly stable organochlorine waste materials and other intractable wastes. Incineration of these wastes in a specialised incinerator capable of operation at a very high temperature is the only proven, environmentally acceptable means available for their disposal. Substantial quantities of organochlorine wastes are being stockpiled in Australia pending availability of facilities for their destruction. The Commonwealth Government, in common with State governments, supports the objective of establishing a high temperature incinerator in Australia. However, any facility proposed would need to be constructed and operated according to stringent environmental conditions so as to avoid environmental contamination. Such plants operate in Europe and North America in a fashion which does not cause damage to the environment or the health of the community. The Government, on behalf of the Australian Environment Council, has sponsored national consultations which have the specific objective of addressing possible public concern surrounding establishment of a high temperature incinerator in Australia. I am advised that the Northern Territory is proceeding with feasibility and environmental impact studies in relation to the proposal for an incinerator near Tennant Creek. Dealings with the local community and arrangements for commercial management of the proposed project are the responsibility of the Northern Territory Government. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that public hospitals will be subject to the fringe benefits tax on the difference between the amount allowed for accommodation in nursing awards and the assessed value of that accommodation? Why has the Government decided to reduce further the ability of public hospitals, for example in my State of New South Wales, to cope with the health care crisis in the community by imposing on those hospitals a substantial extra tax burden? Does the Minister suggest that the hospitals should now cash out the benefit by increasing nursing salaries? Senator WALSH —Specifically on that question, I have no idea what hospitals charge and what the likely assessed value of board will be. Subject to some concessions and exemptions which were announced a couple of weeks ago and before, the general principle which applies to fringe benefits taxation is that where there is an employer-employee relationship and the employee receives benefits in kind, on which a monetary value can be placed, then the employer will be liable to pay the tax on those fringe benefits. I can only assume that the Opposition believes that income in kind can be substituted for wages and salaries and that nothing should be done about that. That is what Mr Howard says publicly-that there should be no tax on fringe benefits and that the fringe benefits tax should be abolished lock, stock and barrel. Mr Sinclair, of course, says that this taxation should be picked up under section 26 (e) and meanwhile Mr Howard, as part of the secret tax agenda for the Liberal Party, has his own beavers working away on legislation for his particular variant of the fringe benefits tax. That has been going on for some months. Publicly Mr Howard says that there should be no tax on fringe benefits and that this tax should be abolished lock, stock and barrel. If I may say so, that attitude is consistent with the view that he adopted when he was Treasurer. I have a document-it is part of the telephone book of documents I have with me-which shows that when the Commissioner of Taxation early in 1978 replied to some earlier correspondence, he noted that the Government of the day had taken a decision not to tax fringe benefits. At least that much is consistent about Mr Howard. When he was Treasurer he took a decision that fringe benefits should not be taxed and he is now saying publicly that they should not be taxed. He is consistent up to that point. But of course with his secret agenda he has a group of people beavering away to produce his variant of the taxation of fringe benefits. Should he ever become Prime Minister-that is highly unlikely; he is unlikely to survive another six months as leader of the Liberal Party, let alone become Prime Minister-he will follow the secret tax agenda. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister telling me that the accommodation provided for nurses in public hospitals is in the nature of a fringe benefit and therefore will attract the tax? Senator WALSH —I do not know what charge is levied for that accommodation. I have spelt out the general principle and if Senator Peter Baume wants an answer to that specific question, I will refer it to the Treasurer. Senator COATES —Has the Minister for Veterans' Affairs seen the allegations in Press statements by the Opposition shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs and other Opposition members to the effect that what they describe as left wing elements, including the Minister himself, peace activists and so-called trendy historians, are seeking to distort the focus of the Australian War Memorial? It is alleged that these elements are seeking a change in the Memorial from one commemorating Australians who served and died in wars to a peace memorial. How does the Minister respond to these claims? Senator GIETZELT —Since the inquiry into the Australian War Memorial began a couple of months ago, there have been a number of obviously contrived letters to the newspapers suggesting that there was some sort of hidden agenda in respect of the problems of administration at the War Memorial. There is absolutely no substance in the allegations that were made by the shadow Minister or, for that matter, by the honourable member for the Northern Territory in the adjournment debate last evening and by other such persons who have written letters suggesting that an attempt is being made by the Government, the Minister or historians at the War Memorial to change the character and nature of that Memorial. Never at any time have I sought to change the direction or the policy of the War Memorial. In discussions with members of the Council of the Australian War Memorial, with staff members or with any other person associated with the War Memorial, I have never sought to change the functions of or reasons for the Australian War Memorial Act or the structures or responsibilities that flowed from that Act. The Government is satisfied that the Australian War Memorial's policies reflect the aspirations of that Memorial-that is that they reflect Australia's involvement in past conflicts and commemorate those who served and died in those conflicts. It would be totally wrong for government, Ministers or any other persons to find themselves in the position of Mr Nakasone, the Prime Minister of Japan, whose Minister for Education sought to distort the historical involvement of the Japanese in the invasion of China in the late 1920s and the 1930s. Therefore, any suggestion that any person would seek to distort the historical position of Australia's involvement in past conflicts would be obviously laughable and completely unacceptable, not only to the Government but, I would hope, to every member of the Parliament. Consequently, any suggestions made by so-called responsible people in the Opposition that there is some sort of hidden agenda will be refuted by me and the Government because the conflicts which exist over the Australian War Memorial are about administration and not about policy directions. Of course, within the community there are different concepts about how history can be recorded. For example, I have received complaints from the Vietnam Veterans' Association that the Memorial's gallery on Australia's involvement in Vietnam does not correctly reflect the total position with respect to the Vietnam War. That is a view that that organisation holds and obviously people will hold different views about the way in which the Council accepts its responsibilities. However, I repudiate completely any suggestion that I have at any time entertained any thoughts of changing the basic thrust and responsibilities on which the Australian War Memorial Council carries out its functions. Senator SHEIL —Is the Minister for Finance aware that, despite the review of the fringe benefits tax, churches which provide accommodation for youth workers or other non-religious personnel are still subject to tax on the value of that accommodation? Is the now confirmed intended consequence of the fringe benefits tax a fair way to treat the providers of non-profit services to the community? Senator WALSH —I do not know whether these facts, as alleged by Senator Sheil, are correct. However, I do know that the Opposition is consistently on the side of the tax evaders, a lesson which it drove home in a most convincing manner yesterday when it made a formal decision to oppose the Australia Card. That means that tax evaders, people operating in the black economy and people moonlighting can continue to evade tax without fear of being caught in the future as they have done in the past. It also means that those people who are cheating on the welfare system may continue to do so. Some spectacular cheats are occasionally caught, put into court and sentenced to substantial terms of imprisonment, as they should be, like the guy who was claiming 54 unemployment benefits and pocketing the lot himself. However, whether welfare frauds are doing it spectacularly or on a more modest scale, thanks to the Opposition and the Australian Democrats, they will be able to defraud more effectively the welfare and taxation systems in the future. That is thanks entirely to the declared policy position of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. It is of course known that there is a ginger group in the Liberal Party-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is now clearly debating the issue and is in breach of standing order 100. I ask him to return to Senator Sheil's question. Senator WALSH —You are quite correct, Mr President. Nothing has really changed. In government and in opposition, Mr Howard is on the side of the tax evaders. The only time as Treasurer that he took effective action against some of the most outrageous tax evasion schemes, the notorious bottom of the harbour schemes, was when he was flushed out by the publication of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the McCabe-Lafranchi report. The PRESIDENT —Order! Again, I remind the Minister that he is clearly debating the subject. Senator WALSH —I have finished, Mr President. Senator SHEIL —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. As these institutions are non-profit and the services are given on a non-profit basis, does the Minister really classify these people as tax evaders? Senator WALSH —Where an employer and employees have reached an agreement to provide income partly in cash and partly in kind, the effect of that agreement is to reduce Commonwealth revenue. It is precisely that practice that the Government's legislation is directed to stop. Of course, on the other hand, we know that the temporary Leader of the Opposition says that there should not be any tax on fringe benefits; in other words, that the system should be wide open to rorts in the future, as it was when he was the Treasurer. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is Australia a signatory to the United Kingdom-United States of America Agreement? Is it a fact that under this Agreement the National Security Agency operates electronic intercept stations in Australia? Does any other form of station operate in Australia under the Agreement? If so, is it operated by an Australian or an overseas authority, or is it operated under some sort of joint authority? Will he identify the participating country or countries in any such agreement? Senator GARETH EVANS —In accordance with the long-standing practice of this and previous governments, I decline to provide information which might confirm or deny speculation on the intelligence and security matters raised in Senator Vallentine's question. Senator VALLENTINE —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Is the Minister aware that this very same question was asked by Mr Hayden of Prime Minister Fraser on 9 March 1977? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is adding new material and I rule that that question is not a supplementary question. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I seek clarification of the estimated revenue from the fringe benefits tax and the substantiation requirements. It may be that the Minister will have to seek this information for me. Will the Minister confirm that in the last Budget the collections from the fringe benefits tax were stated as $575m, giving a total revenue collection of $680m if one adds the $105m from substantiation estimated by the Treasurer in September 1985? Can the Minister explain why on 29 October the total was stated as $775m, from which the Government said it will cut $75m as a result of the fringe benefits tax review? Does the Minister agree that, despite its review, the Government is still collecting $700m, which is $80m more than just over a year ago it said that it would collect, and $20m more than was forecast as recently as the August Budget? Will the Minister advise what figure is included in the $700m which relates to substantiation? Senator WALSH —I was not able to follow all of the figures that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle gave but I think there was an apparent inconsistency between them. If one takes estimates from particular times, there is an apparent inconsistency. The reason for that is that the original estimates that were made were subsequently revised. There has been at least one revision since the Budget figures were prepared. The most recent estimates-I will check this with the Treasurer-are that for a full year the fringe benefits tax will yield $520m and the substantiation requirements will add $180m, making $700m in total, which I think was one of the figures that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle gave. That is the most recent estimate but there have been revisions from time to time, which of course is not at all unusual, as more knowledge and information come to hand. That accounts for what I think were apparent inconsistencies in the figures that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle cited. I do not know whether there was another purpose to the question, to show that there is something wrong with collecting more revenue. To the extent that revenue estimates have been revised upwards, and if that revision is more accurate than the earlier estimates, that of course demonstrates that there was an even greater need for the fringe benefits tax than had previously been believed. Senator REYNOLDS —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Defence seen Monday's Brisbane Sun which reported the Queensland minority Premier as calling for the establishment of a political army? Can the Minister comment on whether it is a treasonable offence to establish alternative defence units in Australia? Is the Federal Government prepared for this type of insurgency? Does the Minister have any rational advice to such minority fringe groups who seek to overthrow the democratic traditions of this country? The PRESIDENT —I call the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I am sure he will heed my advice not to proffer a legal opinion. Senator GARETH EVANS —Whether the propositions advanced by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and miscellaneous acolytes around the place, such as Andrew Hay, might amount to the offence of treason under section 24 of the Crimes Act, which relates to levying war against the Commonwealth, would be a matter for the proper authorities. All I can really say is that the issue need not concern us unduly because, quite apart from the legal position of such an army, there must be quite serious doubts about the ability of extremists such as Mr Hay to muster troops and to hold together any kind of united force. I remind the Senate that last month Mr Hay went on a very expensive public campaign against the fringe benefits tax yet managed to attract only an estimated 80 people to an extraordinarily heavily publicised anti-tax rally in Hobart, and even fewer people as a proportion of the population in other capital cities-hardly a popular uprising. Earlier this year he was not able even to maintain unity among his senior officers, as was evidenced by the angry departure from the Australian Federation of Employers of Mr John Leard, who I see has now gone off to mount a pop-gun revolution of his own. The kinds of antics mounted by these characters in the New Right suggest nothing but that, if one is looking for a military metaphor, we are confronted with a latter-day version of Dad's Army, which I suppose is only marginally preferable to the kind of grand-dad's army that we might have to contemplate were the minority Premier Bjelke-Petersen to succeed in his aspirations to come south. The Federal Government is clearly able and willing by all available means to meet this and any other half-baked insurgency that might emanate from the north. As to the advice I am asked to give to the Premier, to Mr Hay and to the gaggle of vulgar populists such as Katharine West who follow their banner, I simply advise them to stop trying to jump on to a right wing authoritarian band wagon of the kind that they are engaged in. It is out of the Australian character. It is not consistent with either the temperament or the intelligence of their fellow Australians. They ought to go home and grow up. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer the Minister to a communique issued by the Australian Minerals and Energy Council at its meeting in Canberra on 7 November, and particularly to the section dealing with taxation of gold mining which states: State and Territory Ministers sought early action by the Commonwealth on the report of the Inquiry into the Taxation of Gold. Some States and the Northern Territory pressed for continued exemption of the gold industry from income tax. I ask the Minister: Firstly, does he agree that early action should be taken by the Commonwealth in relation to the report of the inquiry, on which the Government has been sitting like a frightened hen since 29 August last? Secondly, when does the Government intend to announce its decision on that matter and on that report? Thirdly, will the Government make the report public and, if so, when? Fourthly, which States pressed for the continued exemption of gold from income tax and which States supported the tax? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not accept the suggestion that we have been sitting like frightened hens on the Gutman report; I suggest that confident cocks would be a much more apt description of our reaction to this and other difficult policy issues that confront us. I accept that an early decision would be desirable in this matter. The Government acknowledges the dangers of uncertainty continuing for too long in this matter. I am sure that the Treasurer and those responsible in the first instance for this decision will act accordingly to set the industry fears at rest. I do not propose to go into any more detail about who might have said what, so far as the different Ministers are concerned. Proceedings of ministerial councils are robust but confidential-except to the extent to which they are willingly put on the public record. This is a matter in which the positions of the various jurisdictions have been publicly articulated on a number of occasions. The Government is perfectly capable of making a rational policy decision and will do so in its own good time. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I asked the Minister a question which he totally ignored: Will the Government make the report public, and, if so, when? Senator GARETH EVANS —When we make either a decision to make the report public or a decision on the substantive policy issue, or both. In either event, it will be in our own good time. Senator AULICH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of a purported public information paper released by the Australian Computer Society which claims that the Government intends to merge some two dozen computer databases from nine different government departments or agencies under the Australia Card program? Does the Government's planning involve any such merger of databases? Senator GRIMES —The Minister for Health has given me the following information, which followed his reading of the Australian Computer Society paper, which is so riddled with misinformation that one wonders why the Society bothered with it. The author, Mr Roger Clarke, either has shown a complete misunderstanding of the Australia Card program or, more likely, I suppose, has chosen to ignore and to distort the facts. Senator Newman —Why should he? Senator GRIMES —Wait, Senator. For example, the claim that the Government intends to merge some two dozen databases from nine different government agencies is completely false. There will be nothing other than the basic identification material on either the Australia Card or the Australia Card register, and there will be most definitely no merging of databases. The superficiality of the Society's paper is demonstrated by the suggestion that consideration of the Australia Card proposal should be deferred until a privacy protective regime has been firmly established. As all honourable senators know, this is exactly what the Government has done with the Data Protection Agency which will be established under the Australia Card Bill and the Privacy Bill which will be enacted in tandem with it. It is also wrong to suggest that the Australia Card program is designed to enable automatic computer matching to be undertaken. In fact, there will be no exchange of information other than that which already happens and, indeed, for the first time, the Data Protection Agency will place strict limitations over the exchange of information available. Every assertion in the paper is based on distortion, misinformation or conjecture, so that it really does the professional reputation of the Australian Computer Society no good. The Opposition has, of course, picked up this paper and has resorted to using scare tactics about the Australia Card in order to hide how weak it is about tackling tax evasion and social welfare fraud. Senator Lewis —Rubbish! If it is a tax measure, why is it being introduced by the Minister for Health? Answer that one. Senator GRIMES —That is because the Health Insurance Commission is the administrative body. At least we are making some efforts to do something about tax evasion, unlike the previous Treasurer who, as Senator Walsh happens to point out, spent a lot of time avoiding doing anything about tax evasion, as indicated by the famous telephone book that Senator Walsh carries around with him at all times. Senator Michael Baume —He has his finger in the wrong hole. Senator GRIMES —We know all about people who had fingers in what, with Patrick Partners; so let us not have too much of that. The Australian Computer Society has been done over by Mr Roger Clarke, who is obviously acting for party political reasons. I understand that the Australian Computer Society is now embarrassed by the paper and embarrassed that it has been done over by this gentleman, and that in future it will not be putting its name to ridiculous papers of this type. Senator JESSOP —Can the Minister for Veterans' Affairs inform the Senate of the reasons why the Hon. Des Corcoran, a former Labor Premier of South Australia, a man with a very distinguished service record and a member of an equally distinguished military family, was not reappointed to the Australian War Memorial Council? Senator GIETZELT —It is very interesting to find Senator Jessop being very much interested in the career of a former Labor Party leader in South Australia. I fully support Mr Corcoran in that particular capacity. However, the matter of appointment to the War Memorial Council is one for the Government, and I do not propose to canvass it in this place. Senator CROWLEY —I direct my question to the Minister for Community Services. Has he seen the advertisement in the Australian of 6 November headed `A letter to the Commonwealth Parliament' and signed by Mr Doug Moran? Is he aware that Mr Moran is criticising the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill and claims that the Government will deny aged and frail people sufficient nursing home care? Can the Minister say whether there is any substance to the criticisms and whether Mr Moran is specially qualified to criticise this legislation and to speak for the frail aged in the community? Senator GRIMES —As for the latter part of Senator Crowley's question, I would find it difficult to understand how Mr Moran could be qualified to speak for the poor and disadvantaged in the community. He is, in fact, one of Australia's most astute and successful nursing home entrepreneurs; of that there is no question. The fact that he could afford to pay about $16,000 or $18,000 for a full page advertisement in a newspaper in that way demonstrates that. I also draw attention to the fact that a similar advertisement was put in by Mr Moran, where he has sponsored a portrait prize in this country, the prize money for which is $190,000, which is, I understand, the highest amount of money for a portrait prize in the world. I am not objecting to these activities. They certainly demonstrate his skill as an entrepreneur. But they also demonstrate, first, that he, as the proprietor of 20-plus nursing homes and the agent running more than that number, is not doing too badly if he can afford that sort of money for that kind of art prize and those sorts of advertisements. I remind honourable senators that a large proportion of Mr Moran's income comes from the public purse. The nursing home benefits which are paid to his nursing homes and the ones that he operates for others provide him with considerable income and considerable wealth. He is also very familiar with the mechanisms for administrative review of the nursing homes legislation as it exists at present. For many years he has consistently appealed against decisions of various Ministers. I note that an appeal has been lodged over one decision of this Government, which will involve a full four weeks of the time of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which will involve considerable public funds in providing legal aid for the community organisation being appealed against. In fact, I know that sometimes I and some Ministers of previous governments have wondered who administers the nursing homes legislation-the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Federal Court, Mr Moran, or the Minister and the Government. What we have been trying to do is to introduce legislation, after considerable consultation with non-government organisations, government organisations, private organisations and the representatives of the aged people in this community, and this legislation is the result of reviews that have been conducted for the last 10 years, and the result of a nursing homes and hostels review by this Government, which has been considerably discussed throughout the community in the last two years, both before the report came out and since then. To suggest, as he suggests in the advertisement, that this legislation is being rushed through the Parliament without consultation is extraordinary. I have some sympathy for Mr Moran, I suppose, because politicians sometimes find themselves in a similar situation. He has spent some $16,000 or $18,000, maybe more, putting this advertisement in the paper. One journalist in the whole country has bothered to ask me about it. As far as I am concerned, no newspaper carried any comment on it. He must be disappointed that such considerable expenditure has created so little interest in the media generally. I admire him for his astuteness as an entrepreneur, I admire him for his capacity to achieve considerable wealth as a result of his activities in the nursing home profession, and I admire him for spending some of that money on the arts; but I do not admire his attempts to influence the Parliament in such a crude way. I wish that he would spend more time discussing these matters both with my Department and in fact with me, and I dare say with the Opposition, rather than trying to address this Parliament through expensive full page advertisements which have little effect. Senator POWELL —In the light of the poisoning of the Rhine River from pesticides and mercury by the Sandoz chemical company, which demonstrates what can result from chemical spillage into waterways, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment: Does the Government support the development of the Kurnell peninsula as an area suitable for the siting of a hazardous chemicals industry, including the planned establishment by the Bayer chemical company of a pesticide formulation and chemical manufacturing plant at Kurnell, close to the internationally recognised Towra Point nature reserve wetlands? Consistent with the Government's obligations under the Japan-Australia Migratory Birds Agreement and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, has the Government informed the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources that the Towra Point nature reserve wetlands may change as a result of technological developments, pollution or other human developments should these proposals go ahead? Senator RYAN —As a practical matter, land use and land management at the Kurnell peninsula are primarily the responsibility of the New South Wales Government. I am advised that the Bayer Australia Ltd proposal to relocate its operations to Kurnell peninsula does not require Commonwealth approval. The Government recognises its obligations under both the Japan-Australia Migratory Birds Agreement and the Ramsar Convention, and in this context the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has written to the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment emphasising that every effort must be made to protect the wetlands from any serious risk of ecological damage. Additionally, the New South Wales Minister has been asked to ensure that the New South Wales representative on the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers working group on international agreements relating to migratory and wetlands birds keeps the working group fully informed on actions being taken to protect the Towra Point nature reserve. Senator JONES —In the light of recent Press reports, I ask the Minister for Finance what role the New Right is playing in its support for tax avoiders-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator must relate his question to the Minister's portfolio. I trust that he will do that. Senator JONES —I will, Mr President. What are the financial ramifications for the Federal economy of the unveiled threat of the Howard-led Liberal Party mission to torpedo the Australia Card concept? Senator WALSH —The 10-year effect of the Opposition's decision to oppose the introduction of the Australia Card is that tax evaders and those indulging in welfare frauds will rob-I use that word advisedly-their fellow citizens of about $4 1/2 billion. That is what is likely to happen over a 10-year period because of the actions of the Opposition, with the support of the Australian Democrats. As I said earlier in Question Time, that decision by the Opposition is entirely consistent with Mr Howard's record in government, when he allowed massive evasion of the taxation system and refused to take any really effective deterrent action against such evasion until the publication of the McCabe-Lafranchi and Costigan reports put him in the position where it was politically untenable for him to do anything else. We know, of course, that there are many pressures on Mr Howard to behave in the way he has done, and one significant pressure comes from the New Right, or at least from some of its members, chief among whom I suppose is Andrew Hay, former private secretary to another Liberal Party Treasurer, Sir Phillip Lynch. I have in this `telephone book' a minute from the Commissioner of Taxation dated 20 July 1977 in which the Commissioner was responding to a number of alleged tax evasion schemes which had been earlier forwarded to him. On one, a share trading scheme, the Commissioner outlined the ways in which it was possible that such a share trading tax evasion scheme could work, and then said: However, this kind of scheme would then be open to attack under the gift duty law. Gift duty was then promptly abolished. So to the extent that the gift duty law was a deterrent to the use of that tax evasion scheme, that tax evasion was then facilitated by the Fraser Government abolishing gift duty. Presumably it then became open slather. That was at the time Andrew Hay was the principal private secretary to the Treasurer, Sir Phillip Lynch, and I presume was facilitating tax evasion in that capacity, as he continues to do. It ought to be noted that I have received some complaints from Lady Lynch, and indeed a report was published in the Melbourne Herald, I think in September, in which Lady Lynch said effectively that Mr Hay had not helped to organise the Stumpy Gully affair- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is clearly out of order. I ask him to resume his seat. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to you, Mr President. During Question Time we have had attacks by Ministers on Mr Clarke, Mr Elliott, Mr Andrew Hay, Mr John Hay, Sir Phillip Lynch, Lady Lynch by inference, and a Mr Moran. Will you refer to the Standing Orders Committee what action might be taken to protect the citizens of this country in a situation where anyone who dares to oppose this Government is bucketed in the Senate by Ministers who have no sense of morality or decency? Senator Grimes —On a point of order, Mr President: Should you consider to look seriously at the question raised by Senator Chaney, I wonder whether you would take into account the actions of previous Leaders of the Government now on the Opposition side. I can remember when they spent 10 minutes bucketing a distinguished professor in this country, Professor Manning Clark, without a complaint from Senator Chaney. The PRESIDENT —In reply to Senator Chaney's question, he would know that the naming of the people mentioned by him in his question is completely within the bounds of the existing Standing Orders. Senator Chaney, as a member of the Standing Orders Committee, would know that next Monday night another meeting of the Committee is scheduled and he will be entitled to raise any matter he thinks fit. I would suggest to the honourable senator, though, that the matter he has raised is more a matter for the Privileges Committee than the Standing Orders Committee. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, relates to the report into the administration of the Australian War Memorial which was presented to the Government yesterday. The report considers in detail questions relating to the transfer of the Australian War Memorial's bank accounts and advice provided by the Director to the Australian War Memorial's Executive Council and the Minister at the time. The report was damning of the Director's performance in this matter and I ask the Minister whether he has considered the issues raised in the report. Senator GIETZELT —It is true, as Senator Elstob suggested, that the report into the Australian War Memorial makes a number of serious findings in relation to the involvement of the Director in the transfer of bank accounts from the Commonwealth Bank to the Westpac Banking Corporation. The report finds that he reacted contrary to the strong advice given to him by a senior officer of the Australian War Memorial and that he gave false information both to the Executive Committee of the Australian War Memorial Council as well as to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and the Parliament concerning the way in which the Australian War Memorial administration had canvassed a number of banks before transferring the account from the Commonwealth Bank to Westpac. If this were not so serious the activities of the Director in this matter would be almost laughable. When the Director was first asked by the investigator, Mr Jones, to explain what discussions had taken place with different bankers about transferring the account he nominated the branches of four banks and named four bank managers as having been contacted. Mr Jones's inquiries revealed that the banks concerned knew nothing about the matter. When Mr Jones again took this matter up with the Director he acknowledged that he had misled Mr Jones but said that he had not intended to imply that he had talked to the bank managers he had nominated. Rather, the Director claimed that he had visited each bank deliberately as a private individual and discussed their services with the counter staff. This explanation almost defies belief and indicates that, whenever faced with a difficult situation, the Director prevaricates or treats the truth rather carelessly. Naturally, Mr Jones, to use his words, found that the reply of the Director compounded the problem as far as the transfer of that bank account was concerned. If the Director is to be believed the counter staff of banks in Canberra need to be specifically alert the next time a potential customer, who looks as though he represents a statutory authority with an account of some millions of dollars, leans confidentially across the counter and asks in a whisper: `What are you offering?'. It seems to me that they would be within their rights if they believed that the person was from the Australian War Memorial. Senator ELSTOB —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the Minister's answer and the completely unsatisfactory situation which is faced by him, having regard to this material, will the Minister table the Auditor-General's report on this matter? Senator GIETZELT —I am quite happy to table the document and I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. It is not a very long document and it canvasses a number of the matters- The PRESIDENT —I hope that the document is not a long document. A long document was incorporated in Hansard yesterday, as the Minister knows, and I trust that this is not a long document because it becomes quite expensive. Senator GIETZELT —No. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister has tabled the document. Is leave given for its incorporation in Hansard? Senator Chaney —Not until I have seen it, in accordance with the guidelines that were suggested. Leave is not granted until I have seen it. The PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted for incorporation of the document. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 a.m. today, two honourable senators each submitted letters in accordance with standing order 64-the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, proposing a matter of urgency and Senator Harradine proposing a matter of public importance. To decide which letter should be submitted to the Senate, I determined the matter by lot in the presence of Senator Chaney, Senator Harradine and the Clerk of the Senate. In accordance with the result of that procedure, I now read Senator Harradine's letter which is dated today's date: Pursuant to standing order 64 I propose that the following Matter of Public Importance be submitted for consideration: The substantial loss in net disposable income suffered by male and female wage and salary earners with family responsibilities by comparison to other wage and salary earners at all levels under Federal and State Awards and the need for the Government to redress this situation as a necessary adjunct to a more realistic and just wages policy and to give a fair go for all families. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.06) —This matter of public importance would be one of the most important to be discussed because it is time to face the fact that wage and salary earners with family responsibilities have suffered discrimination, at least over the last 10 years. The reason that I have put this matter forward today is that I know that discussions are taking place within Government circles, trade union circles and employer circles about the attitude they are about to take on the next national wage case. This is a plea to acknowledge that discrimination against wage and salary earners at all levels of Federal and State awards has occurred, is continuing to occur and is getting worse. It is a plea to understand why this discrimination has occurred; it is a plea to recognise the damaging consequences of this discrimination; and, most importantly, it is a plea to redress this discrimination. Unless this discrimination is redressed, the Parliament and, more particularly the labour movement, the Government, and the trade union movement, will lose credibility. What are the facts? By comparison with others in the work force the net disposable income of male and female workers with family responsibilities under all Federal and State awards has fallen substantially. Not only has it fallen substantially but also these families have been saddled with an unduly greater share of the taxation burden. As an example of what I am saying let me take a family with four children living on average earnings. The standard of living of that family has dropped by 11 per cent over the last 10 years and will fall a further one per cent by June next year, even allowing for the much trumpeted tax cuts. Any worker with family responsibilities who thinks the tax cuts will redress the situation has another think coming. In fact, given the tax cuts, the purchasing power of that family, as described, next financial year will be $1,230 less than the purchasing power of the same sized family in 1976. On the other hand, the purchasing power of a couple with no children and a combined income of one and a half times average weekly earnings will be $910 more than for the same unit in 1976. We must ask ourselves: Why are we not acknowledging this? We must surely acknowledge that the discrimination has occurred. Pointers to this acknowledgment have been tabled in the Parliament. The most recent one was tabled yesterday, but the one to which I wish to refer is the Social Security Review, Issues Paper No. 1, `Income Support for Families with Children'. That was forwarded to Parliament three weeks ago. On page 6 of that document the review committee says: Payments to families with children in Australia developed as an adjunct to wages policy, recognising that wages do not take account of family responsibilities. National wage decisions in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in 1974 and 1977 determined that wage fixation should no longer consider the issue of ``family needs'' which had been an integral part of the Australian concept of the basic wage. As I well remember, this question was canvassed during discussions on the total wage. It is now 19 years since the total wage was introduced. Now is the appropriate time to consider what has happened, specifically since 1974, when the decision about the minimum wage was taken. In that decision in 1974 the Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission said: The Commission has pointed out in the past that it is an industrial arbitration tribunal, not a social welfare agency. We believe that the care of family needs is principally a task for governments. For the reasons mentioned we have decided that the family component should be discarded from the minimum wage concept . . . From that time at least formally, and before that time in effect, the family factor has been excluded from consideration of wages by industrial tribunals. I might point out that it is only in the last 20 years, and particularly since the introduction of the total wage in 1967 and that decision on the minimum wage in 1974, that the family factor has ceased formally to be taken into account by industrial tribunals in considering wages policies advocated by unions. Institutionalised union advocacy on behalf of the family wage earner has thereby been lost, and the fate of the worker with family responsibilities has been left to the vagaries of politics. What has happened in those vagaries of politics? As the Social Security Review mentioned, since 1976, when the tax rebates for children were taken away from taxpayers and were cashed into a family allowance system, all families have experienced a decline in their disposable incomes relative to individuals and couples without children. I refer to page 10 of the review. Additionally, on page 56, the review says that the taxation burden has shifted towards families with children. This has resulted in families bearing a greater share of the tax burden. I refer to that Government document because, in telling us that we are in a crisis situation and that the standard of living of every Australian cannot be expected to increase but can be expected to decline, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that that burden must be shared equitably. The point of this matter of public importance is that the burden has not been shared equitably, is not being shared equitably and, if present policies are to continue, will not be shared equitably-quite the reverse. One must ask oneself also: Why has this discrimination occurred? Particularly where we have a Federal government which ought to have regard to its traditional family supporters, why are its present policies acting against that traditional support? It is clear to me that the advice that it has been getting from the largely two-income aristocracy of Canberra is in effect lobbying for policies which discriminate against workers with family responsibilities. The policy, might I say, is playing into the hands of the New Right, the new establishment, which seeks to pursue policies which will ensure an oversupply of labour. Let me prove that point. In the Financial Australian of 23 October 1986, in the report of an interview between Rowena Stretton and a self-styled member of the new establishment, Darrel Drieberg, it is stated that he is Managing Director of the recently floated Trans Equity Ltd. It states: He is rich, entrepreneurial and tough-but likeable. At 37, he is divorced and earns an undisclosed sum well above $100,000 a year. He talks about ``the youngsters'' in the business community flexing their muscle and promotes the ideal of ``being a high net worth individual''. If he was in political control of Australia he would maintain a high level of unemployment as an economic weapon-``it's always nice to have a surplus of just about everything''. . . . ``I don't get hooked up in the inequities. I want what you might call a dog-eat-dog world with degrees of excellence and efficiencies. ``Attitudes are changing. There's a mental revolution. It's survival of the fittest. People say the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and society will break down . . . but society will never break down.'' Senator Peter Baume —A miserable philosophy. Senator HARRADINE —Exactly. That push to create an oversupply in the labour market is one which I believe is being pursued by the advisers to the Government. I mention particularly the Office of the Status of Women because Senator Susan Ryan is in the chamber. I do this in all seriousness. I believe the proposal that has been put forward by the Office of the Status of Women, as indicated by the Director of that Office, concerning the need to ensure that 85 per cent of married women are in the work force is one which should concern the Government. It flies in the face of what was said by the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, in his John Curtin Memorial Lecture in Perth in September 1983. Bob Hawke said: The plain fact is that no government in Australia will now, or in the foreseeable future, solve the problem of unemployment solely through the available methods of increasing the supply of jobs. At least equal attention must be paid to the question of reducing the demand for jobs by helping to provide socially constructive alternatives. That is what the Prime Minister said in Perth in September 1983. What more socially constructive alternative to paid work is there than the raising of a family by a spouse? Senator Giles —Not just for women. Senator HARRADINE —But the plain fact is that it is naturally women who seek to achieve that goal, and it is unfortunate that the advice that has been given to the Government in respect of these matters is coming from people who have priorities which are obviously not the Prime Minister's. We must not only understand why it has occurred; we must recognise its damaging consequences. Recently a survey was done on unemployment, and that survey showed that, whilst the official statistics for unemployment are dramatically high, there is a great deal of hidden unemployment. In other words, there are people who seek to be employed in the paid work force but who have no show of getting into the paid work force now or in the foreseeable future. Many of those persons, of course, have family responsibilities and are from families with only one income. The type of family policy being pursued condemns those people to a very sub-standard standard of living. The Government might say that it has developed the policy of the family income supplement. Let me say to the Government that the policies it has been pursuing have resulted in the dignity of both male and female workers with family responsibilities being affronted and more and more families being forced into the poverty trap of having to rely on the family income supplement welfare scheme, with no incentive to get out of it. I should like to incorporate in Hansard three tables which have been prepared for me by the Parliamentary Library. The first one is entitled `Effective Marginal Tax Rate on 6 Hours of Regularly Worked Overtime for Person with Dependent Spouse and 4 Children on Average Minimum Award Wage'. This worker's overtime earnings are $69.32, of which $55.02 is taken by an effective marginal tax rate of 80%. That is an absolutely devastating figure. I do not have time to go through the other two, but they are entitled `Tax Payable and Disposable Income, Family with Four Children' and `Disposable Income and Tax Payable', comparing the family with four children and the couple with no children. I seek leave to have those three groups of statistics incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- EFFECTIVE MARGINAL TAX RATE ON 6 HOURS OF REGULARLY WORKED OVERTIME FOR PERSON WITH DEPENDENT SPOUSE AND 4 CHILDREN ON AVERAGE MINIMUM AWARD WAGE Initial Weekly Salary (a)... $292.70 FIS Threshold... $241.00 FIS Entitlement (b)... (17 x 4-51.70) 2 $42.15 Overtime (6 hrs @ time + 1/2) (c)... $69.32 Gross Weekly Salary... $362.02 Annual Salary (d)... $18,825.04 Marginal Tax Rate (e)... 29.42% Tax paid on $69.32... $20.39 Loss of FIS... $34.66 Total loss... $55.05 Effective Marginal Tax Rate... $55.05 $69.32 79.4% (a) June 1986 rate (Source: ABS Award Rate of Pay Indexes, Australia). (b) Family income supplement is reduced by 50 cents for every one dollar earned in excess of $241. FIS rate increased to $17 per child from November, 1986. (c) Assumes 38 hr week. (d) Ignores other receipts, such as holiday loadings, other income, etc. (e) Rate applying in 1986-87 tax year. TAX PAYABLE AND DISPOSABLE INCOME, FAMILY WITH FOUR CHILDREN, SINGLE BREADWINNER EARNING AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS 1976-77, 1986-87 AND 1987-88 ($ p.a.) 1976-77 1986-87 1987-88 Income (a)... 9,364 22,970 24,350 Gross Tax... 2,667 5,450 5,740 Health Levy (b)... 175 263 304 Rebates General (c)... 610 - - Spouse... 500 1,030 1,030 Housing Interest (d)... 450 - - Net Tax (e)... 1,280 4,680 5,010 Family Allowance... 1,067 1,600 1,600 Effective net Tax... 210 3,080 3,410 Disposable Income... 9,154 19,890 20,940 as % of Income... 98 87 86 $ 1985-86 (f)... 19,520 18,590 18,290 (a) AWE for 1986-87 and 1987-88 estimated using 6 per cent per annum increases. (b) Assumes no private health insurance in 1976-77. (c) Assume claims for education etc, in 1976-77 less than $1500 per annum. (d) Assume interest repayments of approximately $900 per annum. (e) Rounded to nearest $10. (f) Estimated using 7 per cent per annum increase per annum in IPD for GNFP. DISPOSABLE INCOME AND TAX PAYABLE 1976-77, 1986-87 AND 1987-88 Year Disposable income as a percentage of total income (%) Real disposable income ($ 1985-86) MARRIED COUPLE WITH FOUR CHILDREN AND ONE INCOME EQUAL TO AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS 1976-77... 98 19,520 1986-87... 87 18,590 1987-88... 86 18,290 MARRIED COUPLE, NO CHILDREN, ONE INCOME OF TWICE AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS 1976-77... 67 27,700 1986-87... 64 27,330 1987-88... 66 28,200 MARRIED COUPLE, NO CHILDREN, TWO INCOMES, ONE EQUAL TO AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS, THE OTHER EQUAL TO HALF OF AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS 1976-77... 80 24,020 1986-87... 78 25,230 1987-88... 78 24,930 Notes: AWE for 1986-87 and 1987-88 estimated using 6 per cent per annum increases. Assumes no private health insurance in 1976-77. Rounded to nearest $10. Real earnings estimates using 7 per cent per annum increase in IPD for GNFP. Senator HARRADINE —The result is now clear to all, particularly to workers with family responsibilities. Had the discrimination they are now suffering been at the hands of employers, the trade union movement would not have tolerated it. Had it been at the hands of industrial tribunals, the trade union movement would not have tolerated it. Why should workers tolerate this discrimination because it is at the hand of government? The time has come to establish an industrially and politically supported social wage system which recognises the family as the basic unit of society. This system would require specific government commitments before the trade union movement agree to enter into any future accord or agreed wages policy. Government commitments should include action to lessen the unfair cost and tax burdens on workers with family responsibilities, to restore the true value of family allowances, which are now worth less than two-thirds of their 1976 value, to resist the accord-breaking threats to the spouse rebate, and to give a fair go to all families. I believe that such action would receive the support of all workers genuinely committed to trade union principles of social justice and equity. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.26) —The Opposition wishes to support this matter of public importance. We have no doubt that there has been a substantial loss in net disposable income suffered by Australian families, as set out in the terms of the matter of public importance, and we have no doubt that this is a genuine matter of public importance for all Australians. Family units are an easy mark for government neglect. Families make up those parts of society which are relatively static, which are concerned with keeping jobs, and which are concerned with and often contribute to the better functioning of community structures such as child care, education, charities, nursing homes and voluntary agencies. Often families are heavily involved in making them work. Families are the people who pay their taxes. They tend to be busy people involved in mutual care and too involved in those things to be the kinds of people who take to the streets in vocal protests, as we see so often on our television screens. In that conservative sense of a group in society which tends to maintain and protect the values of that society, our families are not only important but critical to the transmission of the culture and to the care and nurture of our young. More importantly, family units provide irreplaceable services and support for their own members. I would like to make it quite clear that I enter this debate from a very special position. I am a member of such a family. I am from a one-income family and have been married for 28 years. We are part of a very large extended family whose members depend upon each other for mutual support. We have aged parents looking to us for care and we have adult children living at home much of the time. That is the kind of background we come from. We know, and everyone knows, that family life is not all sweetness and light. Not all families are perfect. Family members are human. They can be mutually unkind as well as kind and they can be mutually cruel, but on balance, across the population, family units provide the emotional, physical and financial security which no other social agency can match. We will yield to no one in the concern we feel for the structures of our family, diverse and varied though they may be. We believe that family membership enhances individual happiness and achievement and provides services to the members that cannot be matched in quality by anything government can do, except in those cases where we are dealing with family pathology, when special government help may be needed. Where families fail governments have to expend huge sums of money trying to match or at least provide a pale reflection of the services that families normally provide. My daughter worked recently in a youth and community services government receiving home for children of families in crisis. Not only were the tales horrific but she was very distressed by some of the people with whom she interacted and whom she had to help. This was a pale reflection of the kind of environment which families operating properly can provide. Where that happens we find we are in a vicious circle where over-taxed families fail and where, having failed, they force up the welfare bill and provide extra responsibilities for government. We have no doubt that the current Government's policies and actions in the years it has been in office have contributed markedly to the pressures under which Australian families suffer. We have no doubt that since the election of the first Hawke Government Australian families have progressively become worse off. Australian families have had less disposable income-certainly less disposable income in real terms. They have had less buying power. I think Senator Harradine, certainly from the terms of this motion, would acknowledge that the economic pressures on our families are among the most difficult to resist. We find Australian children have been suffering. We find that the disastrous record of the Hawke Government in the areas of wages, taxation-particularly the fringe benefits tax-family allowances, the cost of providing housing and shelter and health costs has affected families adversely. The Hawke Government has been so busy patching up problems, putting out bushfires, that it has forgotten the importance of maintaining and strengthening families. With the job that they do and the irreplaceable function that they perform, families are needed for our society to be sustained. By weakening families the Government creates more problems, more hurt and more disadvantage. Let me just turn to a few of the areas. Looking at the areas of wages and taxation we see that the real wages of Australian workers have declined not only because of wage discounting but also because their purchasing power has gone down. The discounting has been brought about partly by the fall in value of the Australian dollar, which is another gift of the Hawke Government. That fall was caused by that Government's economic policies. Worse still, we see the decline in the after-tax income, the real take home pay, the money that people use to pay for their needs day by day. Both the average and the marginal rates of tax have increased greatly under Labor and if we look at the total tax take-the numbers of billions of dollars taken from Australian families, from pay as you earn taxpayers-we find that this has increased enormously since the election of the Hawke Government both in dollar terms and in real terms. That money has been taken from families. It is the families that have less money themselves, particularly families on average weekly earnings which are particularly hard hit. I have had two tables prepared in the office of Mr Howard. The first table details the marginal average tax rates for a single income family on average weekly earnings, showing the figures at March 1983, December 1984, June 1986 and what we expect after the first and second rounds of Keating tax cuts, that is, at December 1986 and July 1987. I ask the permission of the Senate to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- MARGINAL AND AVERAGE TAX RATES FOR A SINGLE INCOME FAMILY ON AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS (AWE) Hawke first elected Last election Latest period First Round of Keating tax cuts Second round of Keating tax cuts March 1983 December 1984 June 1986 December 1986 (g) July 1987 (h) AWE (a)... $370.3 $427.3 $465.9 $480.0 $494.0 Average annual earnings (b)... $19,310 $22,280 $24,290 $25,030 $25,760 Gross PAYE tax payable (c)... $4,415 $5,355 $6,280 $6,179 $6,305 Dependent spouse rebate... $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 Net PAYE tax payable (d)- Annual... $3,385 $4,325 $5,250 $5,150 $5,275 Weekly... $65 $83 $101 $99 $101 Average tax rate (e)... 17.5% 19.4% 21.6% 20.6% 20.5% Marginal tax rate (f)... 30% 46% 46% 43% 40% (a) AWE for full-time adult males as used exclusively in the Government's Draft White Paper on Tax Reform. Source: ABS Cat. No. 6302.0. (b) AWE X 52.14. (c) Using the personal income tax scales applicable at the time. (d) Gross PAYE tax payable less dependent spouse rebate. (e) Net PAYE tax as a percentage of average annual earnings. (f) Marginal tax rate applying to AWE. (g) Assumes 3% increase in AWE between the June and December quarters 1986. (h) Assumes Budget forecast of 6% increase in AWE through the course of 1986-87. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Minister. The second table, also prepared in the office of Mr Howard, shows individual and family income tax burdens and how they have increased between 1983 and today. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY INCOME TAX BURDENS All single people and families on average weekly earnings currently face both higher marginal and average income tax rates than when the Hawke government was first elected. Even after the income tax cuts are in place next July, these rates will still be much higher than in March 1983. For a single person: Marginal tax rates Average tax rates % % March 1983... 30 22.9 June 1986... 46 25.9 July 1987... 40 24.5 For a family with a dependent spouse and two dependent children (which therefore receives the dependent spouse rebate): Marginal tax rates Average tax rates % % March 1983... 30 17.5 June 1986... 46 21.6 July 1987... 40 20.5 Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Minister. The average tax rate has increased from 17.5 per cent to over 21 per cent and the average marginal tax rate has risen from 30 per cent to 46 per cent. Even after the tax cuts in December, themselves deferred three months from what was promised, and the July tax cuts, if they ever eventuate, the rates which people pay will still be higher than when Labor came to office-and the people who are paying those extra tax rates are the families of Australia. We estimate that each family is $15 per week worse off because of Labor's tax increases. I believe that Senator Harradine offered some figures-I do not know whether they are the same-but in terms of order of magnitude he and I are talking about exactly the same thing. There has been no indexation of the dependent spouse rebate, so families with a parent looking after young children full time have been even more adversely affected. Looking at family allowances, we see that the Labor Government has taken no steps to increase the levels of family allowances, and their value has declined by about 20 per cent since the Labor Government came to office. This could be a loss of about $130 a year to an Australian family with two dependent children. In addition, of course, we know that from 1 January 1987 the family allowance for children over 16 will be means tested, and this could cost families even more. Looking at housing, we discover that we have the highest real housing loan interest rates we have ever had. At the moment people are paying 15 1/2 per cent to try to service their loans so that they can buy a house to shelter the family that they love. The monthly mortgage repayments for a family with a typical 25-year $50,000 home loan have risen by a staggering $152. They have risen from $508 when Mr Hawke was elected to $660 today. That money has to be found by families. I have had Commonwealth car drivers, as we talked in the car going home, saying: `Senator, if there is any further increase in those interest rates I don't know whether I will be able to keep my home. I am working as much overtime as I can, but I do not know whether I will be able to pay the mortgage and keep my home'. People should not have to say those kinds of things. It is the families that are being affected. If we look to private rental accommodation as the alternative we must realise that one is lucky to find any rental accommodation. It is very scarce now in most of the major cities of Australia and we find that the rents that families have had to pay have raced ahead even of inflation, even though wage rises have been somewhat discounted. Looking at the area of health and families, we find that under Medicare costs are up by 40 per cent, so the Medicare levy now has to rise. It will rise by 25 per cent on 1 December. Who will pay the increased levy? It will be Australian families once again. Overall, looking at all of this-wage discounting, tax increases, the real cuts in family allowances, increased housing costs and rising health costs-all of these things have made the average family with two children something like $27 per week worse off. I have another table prepared by Mr Howard's office which sets out the effects of these factors on the net income of a one-income family on average weekly earnings with a dependent spouse and two dependent children. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 1 ONE INCOME FAMILY ON AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS WITH DEPENDENT SPOUSE AND TWO DEPENDENT CHILDREN December 1984 June 1986 ($) ($) 1. AWE (a)... 427 466 2. Annual Income (b)... 22,279 24,300 3. Paye tax payable (c)... 5,355 6,284 4. Medicare Levy (d)... 223 243 5. Gross tax payable (3 + 4)... 5,578 6,527 6. Rebates Dependent spouse... 1,030 1,030 Concessional expenditure (e)... 120 - 7. Net tax payable (5 - 6)... 4,428 5,497 8. Family allowances (f)... 664 664 9. Disposable income (2 + 8 - 7)... 18,515 19,467 10. CPI (g)... 88.8 100.0 11. Real disposable* income (h) Annual... 20,850 19,467 Weekly... 400 373 Loss since last election... - 27 The real disposable income of the average family has fallen by around $27 per week or $1400 per year since the last election. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Minister. Labor has taken more away from the average family per week than the family allowance for one child provides the family each month. The losses have been very considerable, and they have not ended yet. That $27 per week would contribute one-fifth of the monthly cost of the average family mortgage, so it is a very considerable loss. Let us look at the question of inflation. At the same time as families have had all this income loss, costs have risen in Australia very rapidly and the impact of those cost rises has been felt by Australian families. Our inflation rate is 8.9 per cent. That is between five and seven times as high as the inflation rate of other Western countries with which we compare ourselves-especially those countries which are our major trading partners. The impact of that high inflation rate is felt by the families of this country. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard this last table, again prepared in Mr Howard's office, which sets out the latest annual inflation rates, comparing Australia with some of the comparable countries. Leave granted. The table read as follows- LATEST ANNUAL INFLATION RATES August Australia... 8.9 USA... 1.6 Japan... -0.2 West Germany... -0.4 UK... 2.4 Italy... 5.7 Canada... 4.3 France... 2.0 MTP... 1.7 OECD... 2.4 Major six industrial economies... 1.6 Today's figure now makes Australia's inflation rate: more than five times that of the United States more than five times that of our major trading partners. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Minister. This means that food, clothes, books, luxuries, sporting gear-anything one would like to name; all the things required by children and by families-cost much more today than they did when Mr Hawke came into government and it costs parents much more just to feed, clothe and house themselves. The Howard alternatives are quite clear and they will benefit families. We will adopt a much more flexible wages policy. I notice that that is part of the motion-that we must look to new approaches to wages. We will want to see employers and employees doing around Australia what was done so successfully at Mudginberri and at the Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd. At Mudginberri a group of workers left to make their own arrangements and ended up better off in net terms. We want all Australians to be able to do that, and if we do it for all Australian workers we are doing it for Australian families. We have promised and we have had on the table income splitting for families as one option, to allow families to lessen the tax burden and increase family spending power. We want to freeze and to cut government expenditure overall so that we reduce the tax burden on those very same families-reduce the tax burden, reduce the inflation rate, reduce the nation's debt and increase the economic power of the families. We will abolish the fringe benefits tax, which of itself has affected and harmed Australian families. We will reduce interest rates with better economic management. We will do it by cutting government spending and so by cutting government borrowing. We will reduce or steady rents simply by abolishing the capital gains tax and by reviewing that ridiculous decision on negative gearing whose only effect has been to dry up the supply of rental accommodation in cities like my city of Sydney. We will reduce health costs. We have set out our health policies. We will assist self-provision for aged Australians by abolishing the assets test and the tax on lump sum superannuation benefits. We will not be party to the kind of things to which this Government has been party. This is the Government which, having identified poverty traps which are harming Australian families, particularly some single income, one-parent families, and having put in place legislation to relieve them, has decided not to allow that legislation to come into effect for an extra eight months. Perhaps this Government thinks that it will be good for the families who have been affected to have another eight months unable to take steps to relieve themselves of the effects of those poverty traps. There are four million families in Australia and 2,250,000 families with children. The available statistics show that the presence of children is currently the first indicator of whether there is poverty in a family. Senator Harradine drew attention to this matter when he talked about families with children who are bearing the brunt of what is going on in this country. We know that if one looks at families in the poorest quarter of income, one finds that families with children are over-represented. Sole parent families, often the result of the breakdown of marriage, are particularly disadvantaged and over-represented. Most sole parent families fall into this poorest quarter. Of sole parent families with two children, more than three quarters will be in the poorest quarter of incomes, and their situation has worsened since the Labor Government came to office. As a nation we do too little to help our families. We permit that sector of our society, our families, to suffer and to endure increasing financial squeeze and hardship. We tolerate children in families being brought up in poverty and in need, often with disastrous long term effects in terms of their adult potential and their personality. What our parties are on about is creating the economic circumstances and the hope for families to succeed. The Liberal-National Party message is one of hope for families, one of success, and that is not consistent with the record of the Hawke Government, under which families have been progressively worse off. In the short term we understand just how severe financial stresses are on families, just how much financial worries are contributing towards the breakdown of marriage, and how financial difficulties are contributing to sending mothers and children into even greater financial and emotional distress. The programs that we have to offer for Australia will improve the economic situation of families, and in so doing will make them and the nation stronger. We believe that Senator Harradine is quite correct to bring before the Senate today a matter of public importance which emphasises the substantial loss in the net disposable income suffered by Australian families. We wish to be associated with the matter of public importance, which is well timed and very important. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(3.45) —The Senate is debating this afternoon a matter of public importance which reads: The substantial loss in net disposable income suffered by male and female wage and salary earners with family responsibilities by comparison to other wage and salary earners at all levels under Federal and State awards and the need for the Government to redress this situation as a necessary adjunct to a more realistic and just wages policy and to give a fair go for all families. There is little to disagree with in that statement. In fact it is the basis of a thorough review of our current social security system which can only go hand in hand with a review of taxation measures-a review which will have a great effect on the disposable income of families. Since 1969 the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has rejected the notion that wage determinations should take into account family responsibilities. I do not think anybody is suggesting that we should go back to the old days of the basic wage-a wage which, theoretically but never practically, was designed to provide for the ordinary needs of a worker his spouse and two or three dependent children. The emphasis on those wage cases from 1969 onwards, and again in 1974 and 1977, was that responsibility for the welfare of families lay with governments through the systems of redistribution traditionally accepted in Australia. I refer to tax transfers, the dependent spouse rebate and child endowment which were in place at that stage. In 1977 the tax relief and the child endowment system, as it had existed for 30 years, was replaced by the Fraser Government by a system of family allowances. In theory, I believe that this was a measure on which there could be very little disagreement. The great problems have developed since then because the family allowance which came into being in 1977 has not kept up with inflation. Its having not been indexed, the real value has declined. Currently, family allowances would need to be increased by some 40 per cent to restore them to the value they held when first introduced in 1977. Returning to tax relief, turning back the clock on the issue of the basic wage would not be an equitable method of redistribution. It is clear that tax relief as generally understood usually favours those on higher incomes. Attempts made in discussion of this matter of public importance to differentiate between particular households also run the risk of overlooking the needs of many groupings. When we talk about male and female wage and salary earners with family responsibilities by comparison to other wage and salary earners, we must acknowledge the fact that there is an enormously wide range of households in which there are dependent children. Whatever direct income tax measures are taken, little change will be brought about in households on very low incomes. The method that has been developed over the last few years involving a family income supplement for those on very low incomes and wages is included in our social security review, and ways of making that more horizontally and vertically equitable are being seriously discussed. Among wage and salary earners there are very many, both men and women who work part time-men part time workers being more common than they were previously. We are seeing some very interesting changes in the labour force-for example, in the participation rates of sole parents. Possibly the most unexpected change here has been that male sole parents have reduced their participation rate in the work force quite sharply from 94.7 per cent to 79 per cent. The rate for female sole parents has also declined, from 45 per cent to 40.8 per cent. That is a phenomenon to which Senator Harradine and Senator Peter Baume also referred, although somewhat more obliquely, but which is acknowledged to be a result of the disincentives that have been built into our social security and taxation systems over the years, culminating in the poverty traps, the solution to which has, regrettably, been postponed until next July. Other groups whose income is dependent on awards of the Federal and State arbitration commissions are those who for some reason are temporarily out of the work force or who are seasonally employed. Those who are temporarily out of the work force on sick leave, maternity leave, compensation, or matters of that kind are also dependent in one way or another, either on the provisions of their awards or on whatever social security provisions can be made for them. Those with the care of young children also come into a wide range of family configurations-some intact families with one or two earners and those who are at least partly dependent upon a non-custodial parent who may or may not fulfil this responsibility. The point cannot be made too strongly that pretty well every household in relation to its earning capacity or income is rarely static. Changes occur over the years, perhaps as the mother leaves the work force for a time and then re-enters it for part time work, which is very common as her children begin to earn, or perhaps as the principal earner returns to part time employment or as either of the earners-assuming there are more than one-leave the work force for a time. Their dependency upon taxation measures will vary quite significantly, as will their dependency on social security measures. I do not agree that the majority of families are necessarily worse off as a result of measures that have been taken by this Government over the last few years. References have already been made to the very important significance of education measures and of the introduction of the universal health scheme. These have meant significant changes to many families and their standard of living-improving it in the case of many low income families. The measures we are continuing to take on housing for low income families and the provision of public housing, although nowhere near adequate-we are certainly not resting on our laurels-are obviously of enormous importance when one is trying to assess whether a particular group in the community is better or worse off. Another matter of great importance is the provision of children's services which, coupled with the second education opportunities, can have a great deal of effect on whether a woman, particularly, who has the care of children is able to develop her own independence, move outside a purely household existence and provide for her and her children's needs. The increasing participation rate, not just of single parents but of all women in the Australian work force, means that more women have incomes and are in a position to pay income tax, which was not the case before. I am not necessarily insisting that it is a great leap forward to be able to pay income tax, but being in the position of having an independent income has enhanced enormously the standard of living of many women in Australia over the past 10 or 15 years. I am a little puzzled by Senator Harradine's reference to this Government's aim of having 85 per cent of married women in the work force. If that statement was made, I believe that it was undoubtedly made in the context of making it possible for women, married or otherwise, with dependent children or otherwise, to develop their independence. The surest way out of poverty in Australia or any other industrialised country is certainly by moving into the work force. Although that is not necessarily seen as a socially constructive alternative-in Senator Harradine's words-it is certainly a way by which many families have attained a standard of living which otherwise would not have been possible. It is certainly not an affront to dignity for a family or household to be provided with a decent standard of living, even if for a period this money comes from the public purse. I find it very encouraging that the question of income support for families and children, which is the basis of the first issues paper from the Social Security Review, is getting so much attention. It is a report which certainly deserves that attention. It would have been relatively easy for this Government, as was the case with other governments, simply to tinker around with the social security system in a way which gave no recognition at all to the enormous range of variables which affect individual families-and not only in relation to taxation or whether they are entitled to spouse rebates or family allowances. A very rough and simplistic approach to these matters is taken by Mr Andrew Hay, the President of the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, but that approach is very far from the thoughts of all of us. I do not believe that anyone at all in this Parliament believes, as Mr Hay does, that family allowances should be abolished. He describes family allowances as `a farce'. We know perfectly well that even in middle income families, whom he describes as `leeching off the Government', in many cases the family allowance is the only disposable income available to the mother who usually has the care of the children. We are very well aware of the fact that over the years, and very much as a result of many years of conservative government, the position of Australia in the world league, as it were, of provision of family allowances and other supports for families with dependent children has dropped alarmingly. Of all the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, Australia is now in tenth position. With an OECD average of 9 per cent of universal family assistance for a two-child family as a proportion of a net average production worker's wage, Australia's contribution is 4.4 per cent. When we look at another measure-the value of tax relief in cash transfers-Australia's position is even worse. With an average of 11.4 per cent of the average production worker's wage for the OECD as a whole, Australia's contribution is only 5.7 per cent and we are listed fifteenth out of 18 countries. Over the next few months as these discussion papers and issues papers become more widely available, these matters will be dealt with thoroughly and effectively. We hope that within the next few years to make a much more effective contribution to the support of families with children. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.00) —The matter of public importance today calls for a fair go for all families. Of course, that is a call with which none of use would disagree; but to begin with, we need to be clear about what we are referring to when we speak about families. There is a range of possible definitions. I find some useful comment on this issue from the social justice statement of the Anglican Church of Australia, which points out that perhaps one general definition is that of one or two adults living with one or more dependent children; or an even simpler definition being `where kids live'. That statement recognises that there are now many variations of families in Australia and that in policy making and in our actions we need to approach family life as it is actually experienced-not a mythical approach to some sort of family that may have existed in the past or might exist in our imagination. The Anglican Church statement goes on to point out that there are external pressures on families-pressures of unemployment, poor nutrition, homelessness, emotional and physical violence, work demands and poverty; that within families there are internal pressures of violence, incest, child abuse and immature relationships; that the family is placed in the context of its immediate neighbourhood and that whether the community gives support to or ignores vulnerable families also puts stress upon families. The report points out that families are the most economic way for people to live because resources are shared on a voluntary basis. It suggests that governments should recognise this and support it. Of course, enormous changes are going on in family structures these days. It is a fact that in general Australian households tend to be getting smaller. While some 60 per cent of Australians still live in nuclear two-parent families, some of which are of a blended nature as a result of remarriages, the proportion of one-parent families has doubled to 13 per cent of all families. Because of contraception and later marriage, 25 per cent of households in 1982 had no children. Birth rates generally are continuing to decline. There are many split households as the divorce rate has increased. There are many children living in de facto family relationships. Many other changes have to be dealt with by families. There is evidence of the loss of net disposable income by families, as the matter of public importance indicates. One figure demonstrates that-a figure which was tabled in the Senate last year and which showed that the amount of income tax imposed over the last 10 years on a family with four children living on average weekly earnings has increased by 435 per cent while wages have increased by only 135 per cent. The tax system has changed to the point that individuals are favoured over families. A part of this decline has been caused by the fact that social security allowances have not been indexed. Perhaps the major problem facing families in Australia today is poverty. As Professor Cass, who heads the Government's Social Security Review, has stated, the highest incidence of poverty is now among sole parent families headed by women and low income families with four or more children. Poverty is associated with being unemployed or outside the work force. As we have seen so often recently, the incidence of poverty is increasing and is deepening in our community at the moment. That poverty markedly affects families, as Professor Cass has stated. In the last four or five years, families, particularly single-parent families, have slipped further and further below the poverty line-2 to 4 per cent of single parents with up to three children. These are some of the problems faced by families in our society and ones to which we really need to pay the deepest attention. They are problems that affect two million Australians, three-quarters of a million of whom are children. As the matter of public importance states, in this case it is the very low level of disposable income that is the problem-in fact a level of income below the poverty line. One of the most effective ways of improving this situation, of getting people out of poverty, would be to ensure that more family bread- winners, whether in single parent families or not, are able to secure employment. The level of unemployment among sole parent families, the majority of which are headed by women, is extraordinarily high. Eighty-three per cent are within the social security system. Given that fact, it is significant that we should recognise the obstacles facing women attempting to get employment, particularly women who have the responsibility for families and who have to exercise that responsibility while living below the poverty line. The first difficulty is that which faces everybody seeking employment, that is, the general high level of unemployment still being at 8.4 per cent and there having been a rise in the September quarter. In that context there is strong competition for the available jobs. It is women in our society who still lack qualifications and experience. Even though we are fast approaching the end of the twentieth century and even though we have made advances, women and girls are still not achieving the same level of educational qualifications or the same level of experience and expertise as men. As a result, women are still under represented in high income and high status occupations and professions, and over represented in lower paid and lower status occupations. A recent Government policy which will affect families and which apparently will be endorsed by the Opposition-as so many recent Government policies which have hurt families, in particular single-parent female-headed families, have been-is the introduction of the $250 tertiary education fee. Since the abolition of tertiary fees, women have increasingly used, become involved in and been advantaged by increased participation in further education. There is no question that one of the first groups to be disadvantaged by the imposition of the $250 fee will be women. In addition, for all people who are in this situation of poverty, there is the disincentive of the high effective tax rates. The Social Security Review Background Discussion Paper No. 4 has made considerable comment on this, pointing out that for some people it represents an effective marginal tax rate of 100 per cent, but in very many cases it is up to 75 or 80 per cent. That is despite the fact that Government policy, once again supported by the Opposition, has quite recently brought in lower marginal tax rates for those in employment, those living very far from the poverty line. That disincentive exists. Not only have we lowered the marginal tax rates for those in employment; we have also ensured that the disincentive remains, that the poverty traps legislation is deferred, and that these people will suffer considerable disadvantage as a result. In fact, for a two-parent family, a couple with two children, living on social security and renting, the loss is $31 a week because of the deferral of the poverty traps measures. There are many other figures to match that. The Institute of Family Studies and a number of other authorities have noted that these poverty traps needed to go. They have not gone. That is a matter for shame for those who are responsible. I note that the Australian Democrats were the only people to oppose that measure. The lack of child care is a significant disincentive for women attempting to get into employment and out of poverty. The provision of child care is not adequate. The cost of child care is beyond most people trying to get into, normally, rather low paid employment, and for those who can achieve higher paid employment there is the fact that, although many other business expenses might be tax deductible, child care certainly is not. It also bears mentioning that very often the structure of work, the work place, the hours and so forth, is very much directed towards the masculine roles in society. A good example of that is the new Parliament House, which was designed to be without child care facilities. This goes right through the whole work place. There is no question but that some fundamental changes would remove some of the disincentives for women and also would provide more opportunity for men, too, to spend more time with their families. My contribution would not be complete without some comment on the contributions of Opposition and Government spokespeople thus far. It is significant that Senator Peter Baume suggested that the fringe benefits tax was an imposition and had disadvantaged families. It certainly has done that-for those families who were accustomed to an annual overseas trip and those families whose children were attending private schools courtesy of a tax-free concession. I do not see how it could possibly be argued any other way. Senator Baume suggested that we need more Mudginberris. If we are really concerned about families, the last thing we will want is confrontation in our industrial relations system. If that is the best that the Opposition can do, let us hope that that is where its members stay. The old sore of income splitting is raised again. We have not seen from the Opposition any firm policy here. We do not know whether it has been costed. But the danger there is that such a system would reduce the Government's income to a level at which benefits, which are already too low, would not be able to be paid. Senator Giles referred to her regret that the poverty traps legislation had been postponed. It is to her credit that she regrets it, but that certainly will not get that $31 a week back to that two-parent family on social security payments and renting their home. There is no question but that there is potential in the social security review for a major improvement in the way in which we handle the sorts of problems for families about which I have spoken, but it seems to the Australian Democrats that those things for which we have often called are now even more imperative: In particular, that in order for people to get out of poverty, for family breadwinners to be able to seek work in the first place, to take work and still to carry on their responsibilities, there must be a significant increase in the free income levels available to social security recipients; that child allowances and rent allowances should be increased; and that the Government must look again at its priorities and must not penalise those least able to pay. The Government must seek its income from other sources. The Brierleys and the Elliotts of this world, whose companies are paying 10 per cent or less in taxation, should not be able to hold their heads up in a world in which people living below the poverty level can have to pay 75 per cent tax rates. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.14) —The Senate is debating, as a matter of public importance proposed by Senator Harradine of Tasmania, the following matter: The substantial loss in net disposable income suffered by male and female wage and salary earners with family responsibilities by comparison to other wage and salary earners at all levels under Federal and State awards and the need for the Government to redress this situation as a necessary adjunct to a more realistic and just wages policy and to give a fair go for all families. We have just heard Senator Giles and Senator Powell talking about the poverty situation and not really applying their minds to this matter of public importance. However, I welcome the presence in the chamber of Senator Graham Richardson, back from Coventry, or Singleton, or wherever it was. It is marvellous to see him back here, because he is an Australian Labor Party senator who understands the difficulties which bank clerks and others are suffering under this Government. It is marvellous to see him back at last. He is tending to hide from some of his colleagues, but we welcome his return. We welcome the things that he said at Singleton, where he pointed out the truth of the matters which the Opposition parties and, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) have been saying for so long: That this Government is attacking the poor people of the nation, not the wealthy people. In relation to the subject of this debate, the Australian Labor Party has always had an unwritten philosophy. It does not express it publicly or put it in its written documents, but the truth is that most members of the Labor Party have a sort of unwritten philosophy of destroying the family unit. There are honourable exceptions, but overall one sees them constantly on the attack in relation to the family unit. Take, for example, the most recent appointment to the Office of the Status of Women, which advises the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in relation to women's affairs. The Prime Minister has appointed one Ms Suzanne Brooks. She has spoken favourably of Sweden's 85 per cent participation rate in the work force by married women. She is aiming to get a participation rate of about 85 per cent. She says that the key to all that is to make it possible for women to have children and to keep on working, if they choose, while they are having children. Senator Harradine —That is a pretty difficult task. Senator LEWIS —Senator Harradine and I agree that it is a difficult task, although some countries seem not to have worried too much about it. There was a time in China and a time in Europe immediately following the Second World War when people did not seem to bother about it. If this Government wants to bring us down to the standards that obtained in Europe shortly after the Second World War, why does it not make that public so that we know what it is on about? Ms Brooks has advocated the abolition of the spouse rebate. At the same time, of course, she is not interested in that rebate because she and her husband, together, would be on an annual income of about $100,000. Let me tell the Senate what was written about Ms Brooks in the Australian Women's Weekly in May this year. This is what was reported: Sue and her husband Ray, a lecturer in economics and industrial law at the Phillip Institute of Technology in Coburg, are childless. `We made a conscious decision not to have children. We're both busy people and at that stage child care was even harder to come by', she says. Instead, she and Ray have a `99-year lease' on two Siamese cats. Ray will cat sit while Sue is in Canberra. She plans to rent an apartment there and fly home every few weeks. `The separation doesn't bother us,' she says. `We've always lived fairly independent lives, and Ray recognises the job is important.' That is the person the Prime Minister has chosen to advise him in relation to women's affairs. That is the problem with the Australian Labor Party. This is just the sort of philosophy that the ALP has running right through it in relation to the family and the family unit. Yet, now it is in government it can see the difficulties. It is beginning to appreciate that the family unit is absolutely vital to the future of the nation, that the family unit provides the best form of family care and that no government agency or government employee can ever step in and replace the sort of family care which used to exist before the introduction of the incredible so-called Family Law Act which brought such disharmony to this country and which has resulted in multiple marriages with children of his and her's and theirs and other combinations. Let me get back to the subject under debate. Under this Government the average family man with a spouse and two dependent children is paying almost $30 a week more in income tax than he was paying when this Government came into office. The so-called tax cuts now scheduled for December this year and July next year will do little to remedy that situation. Even after those tax cuts are introduced completely by July of next year the average wage earner will still be on a marginal tax rate of 40c in the dollar. Glory be! What on earth has happened to this country? How much money does this Government want to take from the taxpayers of this nation? Until December of this year they will be paying 46c in the dollar, and there was a time under this Government when they were paying a marginal tax rate of 47c in the dollar. When the Hawke Government came into office in March of 1983 the average wage earner and family man was on a marginal tax rate of only 30c in the dollar, and we were concerned about that. Members of the Fraser Government's back bench were saying that the marginal rate of 30c in the dollar was too high, and the Government at that time was looking to see what it could do to lower it. Under the Hawke Government the marginal rate rose to 47c in the dollar, has been reduced to 46c in the dollar and after the tax cuts will be 40c in the dollar. Of course that is not unusual with Labor governments, Mr Acting Deputy President. You will recall that under the prime ministership of Mr Whitlam the marginal rate rose to 44c in the dollar. It was the Fraser Government which managed to drag it back to 30c in the dollar. It is an enormous disincentive to people in Australia to go out and work harder to earn more money when they have to pay 40c in the dollar tax on every extra dollar they manage to earn. The average family man on average weekly earnings with a dependent spouse and dependent children currently pays an average tax rate of 20.5 per cent. So he has a marginal rate which will ultimately be 40c in the dollar but his average rate is 20.5 per cent, compared with 17.5 per cent when the Fraser Government left office. It is quite clear that all the Government is doing with these so-called tax cuts is giving back some of the extra tax it has taken from taxpayers since it came into power. In fact, it has been calculated that an additional $15 a week in income tax cuts on top of the Keating tax cuts would be required to reduce the income tax burden of a single income family on average earnings to the same level that applied when this Government came into office in March 1983. For a single income family on average earnings the tax cuts will be $15 light. In addition, the Hawke Government has dramatically increased fuel excise, it has increased the Medicare levy and it has increased and introduced a new range of wholesale taxes. It has abolished the concessional expenditure rebate which was of assistance to many large families and was some partial recognition of the increased costs suffered by those families. Let me draw attention to some figures calculated by my colleague in the House of Representatives, Mr Alasdair Webster. He has calculated that an ordinary single income family on $39,000 a year with three teenage children has only about $100 a week of what he has called `free' income. In other words, after allowing for tax and the estimated cost of housing and feeding a family, out of a quite substantial salary such a family would be left with only $100 a week to spend on food and clothing for the two adults and other things. He has also drawn attention to the fact that a single mother on the supporting parent's benefit with one young child may have as much as $172 as week so-called `free' income-in other words, $70 a week more than the so-called well-off family. The figures are clearly set out by Mr Webster. The Institute of Family Studies carried out a household survey into the cost of feeding and clothing children in a family with an income of less than $180 a week. It found that it cost $19.73 a week for a two-year old child, $25.31 for a five-year old, $31.03 for an eight-year old and $49.04 for a teenager. It also surveyed the costs for a family with an income of $425 a week, and the costs for such a family were substantially higher. The Institute points out that the family allowance of about $5.20 a week for the first child is grossly inadequate compensation for the family. Families in this country are being totally overlooked by this Government. Mortgage interest rates are now at an incredibly high level. People are paying an interest rate of 15 1/2 per cent on their mortgages, and anyone trying to buy a house at present is being sucked into paying other massively high interest rates because this Government is keeping up interest rates in order to bring in deposits from overseas investors to paper over the crack in the monthly export-import deficit. Health care costs under Medicare are exploding out of all proportion. The inflation rate is still being maintained at an extraordinarily high figure in relation to the rates of our overseas trading partners, and it is the relationship between our inflation rate and that of our overseas trading partners which makes life so difficult for many people. The Opposition certainly supports this matter of public importance raised by Senator Harradine and congratulates him on bringing it forward. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.29) —The matter of public importance brought forward by Senator Harradine goes to the question of how we can maintain at a decent standard of living the families of this nation. The point has been made again and again-it is a point that certainly nobody here would disagree with and with which very few people in the community would disagree-that the family is the fundamental unit of society. That statement has often been made, and it is clearly recognised by all. There has been a tendency in the debate to distinguish between the family and others, as if we have not all been at one stage or another part of a family. The fact of the matter is that we are all born and, hopefully, we have a family context in which to grow up. That family may split-unfortunately there is too much of that these days, caused by, amongst other things, economic problems-nevertheless, the concept of the family being the basic unit is certainly one that is accepted by and large by the whole community. The real question is how government, how any institution, can best provide for that family in the society in which we are presently living. Senator Harradine, in his matter of public importance debate today, raised the question of both Federal and State award wages. I think he properly highlighted the part that the union movement can play and should play in this matter. He indicated, as he has before in the Senate, the great importance of the part that the unions play in the proper running of this country and the proper protection of the family. Senator Harradine, in speaking on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill earlier this year, pointed out that under one interpretation of the Bill of Rights as it relates to unions the fundamental rights of unions to operate in this country, and indeed elsewhere, may in some way be prejudiced. He indicated then the danger that that would bring to Australian society as a whole. The Opposition, of course, has also worked out, has divined, that the family is important, as has just been said by Senator Lewis and as was said earlier by Senator Peter Baume. But the protection that is afforded the family by the unions in their proper operations is condemned by the Opposition. It is difficult to accept that members of the Opposition get up in this chamber and say `The family ought to be protected economically. It should be given proper conditions to work in. Enough money shall be brought home', yet that very institution, the union movement, which is there to allow appropriate amounts of money to be brought into the home so that the family can be properly looked after, is the object of attack by the Opposition. It has declared that, when it comes to office, it will bring in very stringent industrial legislation to ensure that the activities of that institution that looks after the family's income, or helps to do so, will be curtailed. The Opposition wishes to do that for the very simple reason that it believes that wages that are presently paid are too high and must be reduced, that the social wage which includes such things as Medicare benefits that are paid to families must be reduced, and that generally institutions such as the union movement and programs such as Medicare which give protection to the family should be abolished. So it is very interesting that members of the Opposition come into this chamber and proclaim, as they have, that they are interested in the family and that they want to do something about the family-I am sure that that is absolutely correct and that they want to do something about the family-but that they then propose a course of conduct which would lead to families being left defenceless and unprotected, unable to negotiate a decent wage, having lost the protection they had by way of the commonality that is provided by the union movement. The second thing I want to say is that the Opposition, in attempting to help the family, as it says it wants to, would abolish the fringe benefits tax, would abolish the capital gains tax imposed upon property and would generally disrupt the taxation package that this Government has brought forward, quite properly, to ensure that the revenue gathered by these measures is redistributed to those who need it. No matter how people in this chamber go through the figures, the fact of the matter is that when this Government came to power the lowest rate at which people were taxed was 30c in the dollar. By the time next year has come and gone that rate will be reduced to 24c. Indeed, that 24c level will be reached by 1 December this year. When this Government came to office the highest level was 60c and that will now be reduced to 49c in the dollar. No matter how the figures are worked out, that is a fact which stands before the country and before this Senate to indicate that there is and will be a continuing lowering of the tax rate. I accept that members of the Opposition have said that they are interested in the family, but there is no indication of how they would arrange things so that the impact on the family wage-the impact on all wages for that matter-would be lessened in the way described in the matter of public importance. Members of the Opposition say that they would abolish the capital gains tax, which is a tax to ensure that those people who used to be able to avoid paying taxes by buying large farms and large businesses and converting their income into a capital asset that did not attract tax, pay their proper tax so that the people who earn income and are not able to convert it into capital do not have to pay as much. It is a little strange to hear members of the Opposition getting up in this chamber and proclaiming, as they do, that they are interested in the family and that they are going to make sure that the finances that are available to the family stay with the family and do not disappear in tax, when they oppose, for example, this Government's attempts to redistribute tax in a fairer way. Members of the Opposition say that they will relieve the taxes on companies. The Sydney Morning Herald of Wednesday, 29 October 1986, indicates the sort of tax that some companies are paying. The Opposition has said that, in the interests of helping the family, it will see to it that the taxes of these companies are reduced. The article in the Sydney Morning Herald states: Those most successful at minimising their tax bill- what are being spoken about here are companies- include some of Australia's best-known companies: Ron Brierley's Industrial Equity Ltd paid 4.66 per cent in tax and his Southern Farmers group paid 5.06 per cent; John Elliott's Elders-IXL paid 10.35 per cent; John Spalvins' David Jones paid 10.75 per cent; Queensland Press paid 7.13 per cent; Alan Bond's Bond Corp paid 13.95 per cent; George Herscu's Hooker Corporation paid 16.8 per cent . . . And so the article goes on. Yet this is part of the program that the Opposition will put into operation if it comes to government. It is part of its proposition that the tax on these companies be reduced. If the taxes are reduced further, who will pay them? Certainly it will be the man who gets out and works for these companies-the average working man. If the general tax propositions put by the Opposition are adopted the family will be in a disastrous state because of the imposition of taxes upon them to replace what this Government presently gets from companies, from large scale capital gains and from the fringe benefits tax. The fringe benefits tax, after all, is a tax that goes to a question of equity because it states that not only income which most families receive as a way of supporting themselves should be taxed but also those company cars that people get, those free loans and those school fees that are paid should be taxed. If we look at what this Government has done since coming to office in respect of the family, which has helped the family, the sorts of statements that are being made about the Government tend to pale. I can give some examples. The Government has introduced a number of policies which considerably help families. First of all, there is the first home owners assistance scheme, which provides grants of up to $6,000 to persons who buy their own homes. Secondly, there is the Medicare system, which Senator Lewis attacked but which provides cover for every family in Australia at a rate decided according to the level of income and not at a rate as was formerly the situation, dictated by some private company which simply says: `This is the rate we are going to fix'. Medicare is a system which allows people to obtain medical care at a rate they can afford. Thirdly, there is a 70 per cent increase in the family income supplement, additional benefit for children, and a 100 per cent increase in the mother-guardian allowance. Fourthly, there has been a substantial increase in the benefits and allowances paid to unemployed young people and those undertaking training courses and full time study. There is the Priority One scheme, the scheme to have young people educated, and the scheme to see that they obtain work experience. In other words, this Government has set up a series of schemes to help people get into the work force and hopefully to earn more and more as the economy recovers. On the other hand, these sorts of schemes are condemned by the Opposition. Presumably it would abolish them if it ever were to come to power, but it has not at any stage suggested what it would do as an alternative. It is very surprising-although, if one thinks about it, perhaps not so surprising-to have members of the Opposition make declarations of regard for the family and all sorts of statements which could be best described as pious, yet not produce any alternative to the schemes which are presently operating under this Government. They are operating certainly in a difficult financial climate; nobody denies that. The financial climate has been brought upon the country by policies of the past, going well back into the 1960s. Certainly there have been reductions in the standard of living because wages have been reduced. They have been reduced in an equitable way in accordance with a scheme that has been worked out with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Nevertheless, this country is going forward with social cohesion. Compare that with the situation that would exist if the Opposition came to power. In that case war would be declared upon those representatives of the workers who protect their wages-a war which would lead to social dislocation and which in the end would disrupt the family by affecting the amount of money that comes in, by causing strife and by generally bringing upon us quite severe social dislocation. Of course the family must be looked after. Of course it is the centre of this community. Of course it must be given proper economic protection. This Government is doing that, in conjunction not only with the unions but also with the whole community and the commercial and business world. Agreements are being reached in the interests of obtaining a fair go, not only economically but also socially, for all Australians. All Australians have at one time or other been in families. Most Australians, fortunately, are in that happy state. Let us hope that will continue. If happiness is to be obtained anywhere, it is to be obtained in the family. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The discussion is concluded. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.45) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The presentation of the annual report of the Department of the Treasury provides an opportunity for honourable senators to speak on virtually any area of government policy because the Treasury is perhaps the most pervasive of all government departments. One could say a great deal about this Labor Government's policies at this time, about policies which have produced an inflation rate in Australia more than four times higher than that of our major trading partners, an inflation rate that anyone who shops for food or clothing or any other item knows is rising day by day, week by week, month by month. It is a Labor government whose appetite for taxpayers' money to spend on its own behalf knows no bounds, which has led to the highest level of taxation in our history. It is a government whose extravagant spending habit has forced interest rates to the highest level in our history because it has had neither the ability to discipline itself nor the courage to take the tough decisions which are necessary if Australians are to maintain, let alone improve, their living standards. It is a government whose policies are destroying incentive and enterprise in this country. One could continue almost ad infinitum with this litany of economic mismanagement, but I will not because I want to spend the remainder of my time putting on the public record my appreciation and, I am sure, the appreciation of successive governments and this Parliament for the wonderful public service rendered to this nation by a senior officer who is retiring this week after 43 years with the Australian Treasury. I refer to Dr R. J. Whitelaw, OBE, AM, who is currently the First Assistant Secretary to the Treasury's Overseas Economic Relations Division. Bob Whitelaw has served under 11 Prime Ministers and, by my calculations, more than a dozen Treasurers. He has represented Australia in London as our senior economic and financial representative; in Washington as Australia's Executive Director on the boards of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; and in Manila as Australia's Executive Director on the Asian Development Bank. Dr Whitelaw has been a senior member of Australian delegations to more than 24 annual meetings of the IMF and the World Bank. His whole working career of 43 years has been spent in international economics. He has played a major policy advisory role in Australia's participation in international economic and monetary affairs, going back to the formation in the mid-1940s of those gigantic pillars of international post-war reconstruction, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, better known as GATT. Later, in the 1960s Dr Whitelaw played a significant role in seeking and obtaining Australian membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and, in the 1970s, in the new arrangements which followed the collapse of the Bretton Woods international monetary system based on fixed exchange rates. Dr Whitelaw is arguably Australia's best known and most respected economist in international economic matters. I could say much more about Bob Whitelaw's career of service to the Australian people, but time prevents me. Suffice it to say that this week a very distinguished public servant retires. His advice and counsel will be sorely missed by this Government and future governments and in the world's international economic forums. May his retirement be long and very enjoyable. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.50) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is the first full annual report that we have had from the Commission for the Future. In speculating on the future for the Commission for the Future I am tempted to say that this will be the first and last annual report from the Commission for the Future. The policy of the Opposition is that, when returned at the next election, this is one of the organisations established by this Government which will be wound up. That is not to say that some of the work and some of the projects undertaken by the Commission for the Future are not without merit and it would be churlish of me not to mention in particular the seminars which the Commission has been organising and which have been very well attended by members of the Parliament. Two of them have already been held. The first of them, given by Sir Gustav Nossal, was a very interesting and useful introduction to issues in biotechnology. The second, given by Mr Fred Hilmer, certainly provoked some discussions on the future of work in Australia. A third seminar is scheduled, I think, for next week. Nevertheless, the Opposition believes, and it has long been my view, that a body specifically established with a budget of some half million dollars or whatever it is to undertake the sort of work which the Commission has before it is not the most appropriate way for the Parliament to be kept informed or indeed for issues to be raised in the wider public arena. I certainly believe that in the selection of the Chairman of the Commission the Government got the Commission off to a wrong start straightaway. I believe that, if the intention of the Government and in particular the intention of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) was to raise a serious discussion on issues of scientific and technological significance in the parliamentary and public arenas, Mr Adams was not the appropriate person to be given that responsibility. I must say that his attitudes and the statements which he has made both about the work of the Commission and the various other bodies which he heads or participates in on behalf of this Government have been singularly unhelpful to an attempt to advance discussion and debate about science and technology issues in Australia. It is interesting, for instance, that the Commission for the Future indicates in the report that at least one of the models used in its establishment was the model in New Zealand. Anybody familiar with the history of the Commission for the Future operations in New Zealand will know that that body had to be wound up by the Government because it did not achieve the objectives which had been set for it but went off on various romps of its own. What it seems to me is clearly needed is the establishment of a body somewhat akin to the United States Office of Technology Assessment which would be able to provide to the Parliament and, through the Parliament, to the wider community a series of discussion papers or analyses of major issues which would bring science and technology issues before the Parliament in a less jargon-ridden form and in a less `pop' form that the Commission for the Future has attempted. I believe that a body somewhat akin to the Office of Technology Assessment is clearly what is needed. We will have an opportunity to discuss some of these matters, including the parliamentary Senate Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment, when legislation currently before the House of Representatives comes to this chamber. Nevertheless, some of the activity undertaken by the Commission for the Future is valuable. It could, however, be better undertaken and more effectively and cost efficiently undertaken by other arrangements. They will be put in place when the Opposition parties are elected to government at the next election and the Commission for the Future in its current form will be abolished and restructured in a way in which what ought to be the primary goals of informing the public and the Parliament about issues of science and technology can be undertaken more effectively. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.54) —I suppose that what Senator Puplick has really said is that, given his Party's policy, he has to see the Commission for the Future into oblivion if the Opposition finally gets back into government. Underneath that statement though was a fairly generous concession that the Commission for the Future, or something like it, is more than needed in this country. The Opposition's policy on this is simply to abolish it. Furthermore, that abolition was made the subject of a throwaway joke by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) when he addressed the nation earlier this year. I think that indicates a very poor assessment of the needs of Australia now and in the future. Many of Australia's problems, if not all in economic terms, have arisen because of bad judgments in the 1950s, the 1960s and even earlier as to the future of Australia. If this country needs anything, it needs a body to look into the future and to plot courses that it should follow so that it can get out of its present difficulties. The Commission for the Future, whose Chairman, Mr Phillip Adams, has been condemned in fairly round terms, has operated well under him. There are in its secretariat two people who ought to be mentioned because they have been particularly diligent in putting forward in the community ideas as to where we are going, which ideas are not only properly but also essentially put forward. They are Ms Rhonda Galbally and Dr Louise Crossley who have come to Canberra on two occasions to present for the members of this Parliament matters concerning the future. As Senator Puplick said, Dr Gustav Nossal came here. He is an outstanding scientist who gave to those members of this Parliament who wanted to hear him an idea of where we should be going in the future. I note that the Victorian Government has adopted a lot of the material that he put before us and is going forward, I think properly. The Commission's communications program, set out on pages 13 and 14 of the report, indicated the sorts of bodies that the Commission has addressed-bodies which will train our future scientists and our future community leaders. This Commission for the Future, particularly under the auspices of Rhonda Galbally and Louise Crossley, will direct those people, those leaders of the future, into the areas that are appropriate. For too long this country has lived in cultural servitude to overseas countries. It has adopted its culture, its science, its technology and its industry programs from overseas. It has been left behind in all those areas to the extent that we are now in all sorts of economic difficulties whereas other countries are not. If honourable senators look at the countries which have set up bodies such as the Commission for the Future they will see what I mean. The Federal Government, in setting up the Commission for the Future, followed the lead of several overseas countries, notably Sweden-which has a very successful body-Switzerland, West Germany, New Zealand and the United States, all of which have had futures thinking and planning bodies for several years. In the United States of America alone there are 31 State futures commissions. Given that and given the general regard around the world for these sorts of bodies, we now have an Opposition which joyfully looks ahead to crushing not only this commission but all it stands for, which is forward thinking as to where this country ought to go, thinking of the sorts of aspects we ought to be looking at, thinking about technology and thinking about all those areas which can lead us to the future. Instead, with a sneer, the Opposition would throw away all those opportunities so that this country would be left, as it presently is, wandering around loosely looking for overseas directions. Those overseas directions come too late to be of salvation to this country. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.59) —I rise to support Senator Cooney in this matter. I am deeply disappointed with the Opposition's statement that it would dismantle the Commission for the Future if it came into power. I suppose it is what we must come to expect from it. It consists of conservative parties rather than liberal parties. Members of the Opposition would like to see the world stay exactly as it is and the Commission for the Future is suggesting that there can and will be change in Australia. I would like to join Senator Cooney in supporting the Commission and in congratulating Ms Rhonda Galbally who has done a wonderful job in communicating some of the more complex ideas and advances in science within this country and in the rest of the world to ordinary Australians. Senator Puplick seemed to imply a type of elitist attitude which suggests that the only way in which the public of Australia can gain information about science and technological development in Australia is through the Parliament. He wants a body which, I suppose, would be fairly dull and dry and would put out material in the right type of jargon maybe for communicating between scientists and parliamentarians. The parliamentarians would then go out and sell science. I think we have very little hope of that type of thing happening. We have in this Parliament, unfortunately, mainly lawyers and accountants. We have very few people who are scientists. I say to Senator Cooney that the lawyers are very useful, but in this area of science we have a very small voice. I have been very impressed with the program of education of parliamentarians into which the Commission has entered. The seminars which have been held on Tuesday nights have had two excellent speakers. I note with enormous anticipation and pleasure that future programs for education of parliamentarians are planned in the areas of information technology in law and education, Australia's natural and agricultural resources and in the commodities trade. So it looks as if we will have an exciting program presenting some of the advances in areas such as computing, information technology, the genetic pool as a resource, and the effect of demographic change on the economic and social implications of the development of new scientific ideas. All these programs which have been produced for the parliamentarians have also been taken up by Robin Williams in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation science programs. These programs have been broadcast on radio and they offer a reasonable forum for the people of Australia to learn something about these new technologies. I think it is essential that we keep something like the Commission for the Future. It is not an expensive commodity; it is very cheap for what it is achieving. It is achieving a popularisation of science. It is making people aware of new developments, whether in biotechnology, materials science or space technology. It is actually turning these ideas into household words and making certain that the people of Australia are capable of adapting and facing the future with the same excitement that those people who understand science have about our future and about our development of technology. This is a job which is being well done by the Commission for the Future and for which it should be commended. I commend both the report and the Commission to this Parliament. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.04) —I do not wish to delay the Senate but I feel that it is important to observe what is contained in Appendix 1 of the last page of the annual report of the Commission for the Future. Appendix 1 deals with programs and projects which presumably have been undertaken or will be undertaken by the Commission for the Future. I draw the attention of the Senate to a program relating to technology and development of a productive culture and the project which is described as `Unions of the Future'. I cannot for the life of me see where in the membership of the Commission for the Future there are sufficient capabilities to address that particular subject. That subject has been given a run over the course many times. I recall that when I first became an official of a trade union way back in 1959 or 1960 people were saying that one of the major problems was the structure of the trade union movement. Of course, others were saying we should get rid of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. At that time, incidentally, it was the communist manifesto within the trade union movement to get rid of the Arbitration Commission. Now it seems to be the new establishment's manifesto. Nevertheless, we have this sort of suggestion to do this and do that, forgetting, of course, that the essential element for orderly industrial progress is that the persons within the system desire to see the system work. That is the essential element. All of these ideas about structure, about the unions of the future and so on may be relevant debating points, but they do not go to the central issue. After all, these matters have been considered by a number of commissions and committees. I recall, for example, that the Australian Science and Technology Council did a report on technological change and employment. There is also a reference by this Senate to its Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment. There was, of course, as honourable senators will know, the Senate select committee which I had the honour to chair on industrial relations legislation. There is a whole host of areas. I do not know quite what the Commission for the Future is doing in respect of this particular area. Someone might say: `Well, unions of the future is a narrow area'. But my concern is that so often people address that issue from on high. They do not even go to the rank and file to see what the membership of the union movement wants. After all, they are the people who ought to have the say; we should not have persons such as commissioners for the future imposing upon the ordinary rank and file what they consider to be the unions of the future. Indeed, this particular question goes to other areas as well. The Commission, in its latest publication, which is a rather hep, glossy publication-I do not have it with me-talks about one of its projects involving biotechnology. I do not see it here in the appendix number 1. I would be interested to know, for example, whether the Commission has been through all of the evidence that we on the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 have gone through. We received some 273 submissions; we waded through those submissions. We heard evidence from 64 people. There are, I think, seven books of Hansard verbatim evidence; and we gave a report to this Parliament. This is the sort of way to deal with these questions, rather than through a non-elected body such as the Commission for the Future. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.09) —I wish to speak on the annual report of the Commission for the Future from a number of points of view, but I am moved particularly to do so because in the early 1980s a body known as Australian Frontier had for two years running annual future directions conferences. In 1982 I was privileged to participate in the second of those conferences, which seem not to have taken place since. That conference addressed the issues of the minerals boom and whether that would be the future for Australia. It was an exciting and rewarding experience. Perhaps one of the most significant things that arose from that conference was from a very disparate group of people a feeling that Australia needed some kind of futures institute to operate on a regular basis in examining issues of the future. It was not until the Commission for the Future was formed and became operational in February of this year that such a body existed in this country. I am not sure that that body is exactly as was envisaged in the Australian Frontier Conference, but in my contacts with the Commission for the Future I have felt it to be an extraordinarily successful and potentially important group for the future of Australia. As a member of Parliament I find the remarks in the report on page 5 which refer to there being no more important group for focusing and reflecting community expectations than parliamentarians, and the words that follow that passage, rather polite. It suggests that parliamentarians often have little opportunity to consider issues that are not immediate and are beyond party policy, the next Budget or the current parliamentary schedule. That is very polite and puts the matter mildly. If there is any group in the community that needs its vision drawn further into the future it is parliamentarians. I have no doubt that the longer I stay here the more I will believe that. Here in the chamber this afternoon we had a good instance of some people having problems with the present, let alone with the future, when earlier in the day we heard a senator grappling with the thought that women might actually have a choice; complaining about what has happened because of the introduction of the Family Law Act-that women are not now staying where they should be, in their homes, whether or not they are miserable or suffering physically or emotionally. Women as much as anyone else have a right to choices. That is a fact of the present, and hopefully will be even more significantly a fact of the future. It is in that sort of area that a body such as the Commission for the Future can play a significant role in drawing the attention, particularly of parliamentarians but of the rest of the community also, to what is likely to happen. This report shows how already the Commission for the Future has spread its influence right across the spectrum. I am greatly looking forward to my first participation in one of the seminars provided for parliamentarians next week. I note from the report that the Victorian Parliament is planning to use the good offices of the Commission for the Future. I can only hope that certain other parliaments in other States will take the opportunity to give their parliamentarians a change to consider issues of the future, guided and encouraged by the Commission for the Future. I, too, wish the Commission well and commend the report. I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue by remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue by remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Senator Colston: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.16) —This report by the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts is one in a series of seven reports that deal with the various papers and annual reports of statutory authorities and departments that are tabled in the Senate. The public might wonder what happens when hundreds of reports are tabled. In the last half an hour senators have commented for a period of up to five minutes on various reports and papers received by the Senate, but it is our procedure to refer annual reports from statutory authorities to the various standing committees of the Senate for them to consider whether they want to follow up matters more particularly. The Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts has taken that course and we now have seven such reports before us dealing with items arising from annual reports. The report that is to hand concerns the annual reports of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for 1983-84 and 1984-85. In particular we wished to examine more closely some aspects of the ABC's radio broadcasts in Queensland. Consequently public hearings were held in Queensland in February this year. The outcome of those hearings and the Committee's deliberations are in this report. Sport on radio can be controversial, particularly when an event of national interest is not broadcast in a region, especially by the ABC whose radio stations have the best coverage of remote areas and country areas generally. Also, a sports service on radio can be controversial when, after many years of covering a sport at particular times in the week, that service is abruptly and permanently discontinued. It is with such an event in mind relating to the broadcasting of sport in Queensland that we came to focus on some particular areas of inquiry. However, my interest in this inquiry has not been aroused by the fact that it concerned a sporting service, nor that it concerned a radio broadcast or Queensland. My interest in this inquiry and in the report before the Senate centres entirely on the accountability of the ABC to Parliament-and through Parliament to the people of Australia. I believe, and I know that the Senate believes, that the ABC should be properly accountable to Parliament. The ABC is a Commonwealth statutory body and is governed by the legislation of the Commonwealth Parliament which created it. The ABC, like other Commonwealth statutory bodies, receives almost all its revenue from taxpayers through the annual Budget decisions of the Commonwealth Government and the decisions subsequently made by the House of Representatives and here in the Senate. In this report the Senate Committee has described a serious breakdown in the ABC's willingness to be accountable to Parliament. I describe this as a breakdown because from the outset and from the highest authority in the ABC, the Board itself, there was a determination earlier this year not to co-operate with the Senate inquiry. The stance adopted by the Board flowed on in all the following months from this decision by the ABC Board. The decision not to co-operate is reflected in the ABC's written submission to the Committee. It is reflected in the ABC's Press statements and the disparaging leaks the Corporation made about the inquiry. It is reflected in the ABC's limiting its representatives appearing before the hearings. It is also reflected in the ABC's appointing legal counsel to attend the public hearings with the ABC witnesses. Quite dramatically and most unfortunately, it is reflected in the ABC's refusal to answer questions. The deadlock that ensued and the complete farce that developed in the Brisbane hearings is further evidence. Finally, the ABC refused, at the level of the Chair of the Board, the General Manager and the Board itself, to be conciliatory and it failed to resolve the matter. This is very clearly brought to the attention of the Senate in the report before us. All these events are described in chapter 4 of the report-I believe very adequately-and there is no need to go over them in detail here. I note only that, having been a senator now for more than eight years and having participated in dozens of inquiries, I have never encountered or even thought possible such a recalcitrant and reluctant witness. In my view, the ABC has been extraordinarily lacking in responsibility. I hope that the Senate's resolution in this debate and in response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts will put this precedent, this kind of impasse, entirely behind us. The ABC must see itself as being properly accountable to Parliament, accountable to the Senate and to the Senate's committees. Now that there have been changes in the Board and the general management of the ABC and also changes for the ABC, in this year's Budget, I expect there will be a full acceptance by the Corporation of its proper accountability to Parliament and through Parliament to the people of Australia. I refer briefly to three particular aspects of the ABC's argument. First, in section 4.8 of the Senate Committee's report we highlight the principal summary statement the ABC put to us. It said: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 guarantees the editorial independence of the Corporation's program services. The ABC holds its power to make programming decisions as a trust on behalf of the people of Australia, for which it is accountable to Parliament, but in which by law and convention, neither the Government nor Parliament seeks to intervene. I regard that statement as circular and self-serving and I reject it. I do not reject that the Parliament should not interfere in the programming decisions of the ABC, but I reject the conundrum at the end of that statement whereby the ABC is saying that it is accountable to Parliament but `by law and convention' it is not, in effect, accountable to Parliament. In other words, it wants to be accountable in theory, but not in practice. Also at section 5.5 and section 5.9 of the report, the ABC sets out its view that it wishes to pick and choose which committees of the Parliament it will answer and which it will not. It said that it would be quite all right to answer questions if they had been put by the Estimates Committee of the Senate, but not if they had been put by a standing committee of the Senate. I reject this totally. Also, the ABC tries to appeal for protection from interference because it claims that its programming decisions are not to be interfered with. I agree with that, but I do not think that that limited programming area should be extended to the wider and general decisions the ABC has made. It must be fully accountable for its wider and general decisions. In the time available to me, and bearing these points in mind, I foreshadow an amendment to the motion that the Senate take note of the report. With such amendment, the motion would read: That the Senate take note of the report and (a) agrees with the Committee's conclusion that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's approach to the Committee's inquiry was incorrect and that the ABC and any summoned officers of the ABC should have answered the Committee's questions; and (b) asserts that the ABC and any other witnesses to Senate Committees have an obligation to co-operate and to answer questions within the terms of reference of Senate Standing Committees and Senate Estimates Committees alike; and (c) requests the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts to consider, in the light of its own evidence and the answers subsequently given by the ABC to Senate Estimates Committees whether further investigation is required. Time prevents me from continuing now and I seek leave to continue my remarks later. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —But you have used up your full time already, Senator Teague. Senator TEAGUE —Nevertheless, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Colston) agreed to: That, on the resumption of the debate, Senator Teague be given a further two minutes to speak. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That General Business Orders of the Day relating to the consideration of committee reports pursuant to Sessional Order be not further proceeded with this day. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I present the report on the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority annual report 1983-84. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The 1983-84 annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority-or GALA for short-was not tabled until some 14 months after the end of the relevant financial year and the financial statements of the Australian Capital Territory Totalisator Agency Board operations and poker machine operations were qualified by the Auditor-General. The Committee received explanations for the delay in tabling the annual report from the Authority and from the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes). A number of factors contributed to the delay, including lengthy negotiations with the Audit Office on the form and content of the financial statements, staff absences over holiday periods, and difficulty in deciding on the appropriate policy on one matter. The Committee observes that not all the delay is adequately explained. The Gaming and Liquor Authority's enabling legislation does not require an annual report to be made. However, the Betting Ordinance and the Poker Machine Ordinance require an annual report to be prepared for the Minister, although the Minister is not required to table the report. Government guidelines for annual reporting by statutory authorities require that annual reports of all authorities be furnished to the relevant Minister as soon as possible after the end of each financial year but no later than six months after that time and that the Minister table the report within 15 sitting days. Compliance with the guidelines did not occur in the case of GALA's 1983-84 report. The Committee regards annual reporting as an important aspect of accountability. It believes that it is undesirable that the Gaming and Liquor Authority remain without a clear obligation to report on its operations and therefore recommends that the Gaming and Liquor Authority Act be amended to require GALA to furnish an annual report to the Minister. This would then bring the report under the 1983 amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act, which requires reporting within six months. With respect to the qualifications of the financial statements made by the Auditor-General, the Committee is satisfied that the matters have now been resolved so that the qualifications no longer apply. However, a number of matters were noted by the Committee. First, GALA exceeded its powers by investing TAB funds in bank accepted bills of exchange, particularly with banks other than the Commonwealth Bank. This matter was finally remedied in December 1984. Secondly, GALA and the Department of Territories have failed to ensure that a necessary amendment was made to the Poker Machine Ordinance so as to remove doubts about the validity of the Authority's investment policy. It is nine years since the matter was first raised and even now the amendment has still not been made. Thirdly, from 1978 apparently misinterpreted-to put it kindly-ministerial approval was relied upon as the basis for the continued investment of large sums of money. The Committee states that the Authority should have ceased the investment until the necessary powers promised by the then Minister in 1978 were enacted. Fourthly, GALA should have in the first instance sought advice on the legal interpretation of its ordinances from the Attorney-General's Department. If that had been done, the dispute over the investment of poker machine moneys would not have arisen. The Committee believes that all authorities should seek advice on statutory interpretation from the Attorney-General's Department, not from private solicitors unless specific and valid circumstances prevent the Department from providing that advice. Finally, the Committee notes that GALA's 1984-85 annual report was tabled with only a small delay and that, although the financial statements were again qualified, the qualifications were in respect of the two matters that have now been resolved. I regret that lax administration involving an Australian Capital Territory authority has again led to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations having to conduct an inquiry and table a report. However, I am pleased that we have helped to ensure that some of the problems have been resolved. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the seventeenth report of 1986 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986. I also lay on the table scrutiny of Bills, Alert Digest No. 17, dated 12 November 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the report relating to 132kV subtransmission development, East Tuggeranong, Australian Capital Territory. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-The Committee, in recommending construction of the 132kV subtransmission development, East Tuggeranong, Australian Capital Territory, has made the following recommendations and conclusions: Firstly, due to the development of suburbs in East Tuggeranong, an additional supply of electrical power is essential and there is a need for a zone substation at Theodore and associated subtransmission network. Secondly, the route of the 132kV subtransmission line from Gilmore to Theodore is satisfactory, Thirdly, measures will be taken to minimise the visual impact of the subtransmission line on the landscape. Fourthly, the Theodore site is well suited for a zone substation to provide electricity efficiently, to present and future consumers. Fifthly, the zone substation area will be landscaped to minimise its visual impact, and, finally, the limit of cost estimate is $6.24m at March 1986 prices. Debate resumed. (Quorum formed) Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.36) —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch, I was debating the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill and I had indicated that the Opposition is in complete agreement with the intention of the legislation, which is to increase the variety of services to the aged in the area of residential accommodation and community services. I commented that Australia has only just scratched the surface as far as community services are concerned and that, apart from meals on wheels, assistance in the home varies considerably. So much of it depends on the local government in the area where a person lives. We could do so much more to help people stay in their homes as long as possible as we know that that is where they want to be. We could help with home cleaning and home maintenance, with small jobs and minor repairs. We could finance ramps instead of steps and hand rails that could assist the elderly to pull themselves up out of baths or showers and thus give them security. We could assist with alarm systems. As I have already indicated, there is considerable worry for the safety of those people. We could help with personal hygiene care. As we went around the country we saw that some of the nursing homes have certainly made a commitment in this area. Some of them go to extreme lengths. They send out a bus to collect the elderly from their homes or from local hostels and take them to their day care centre where they are bathed or helped with showers. For the rest of the day they are assisted with activities and entertainment in which they participate, and with general diversional therapy. If we could give that home service, it would be so greatly acceptable not only to the Government coffers, because it would be very much cheaper to keep the elderly in their homes even if we supplied all of the services that I have mentioned, but also to the elderly who, as I have already indicated, want to stay in their homes for as long as possible. Once they are no longer able to do that, the elderly usually move into hostel accommodation. Senator Bjelke-Petersen, in her speech, said that many of the church groups have a system whereby the elderly go into hostels, then move into church nursing homes and then into a hospital when they become too ill to stay in the nursing home. In the hostels it is so much easier to supply the services required. The elderly are all in one area so the services for meals, home assistance, the alarm system, the personal care and the activities are so easily able to be carried out. Many of the elderly go on tours around the countryside from the hostels. In general it has become a very acceptable way for the elderly to spend some of their years. Senator Crowley said that in the past nursing homes have been places to which people have not been very keen to go. They were also places into which many of the elderly were inappropriately placed. That has altered over the years. We now find that the proprietors of nursing homes say that their clientele has changed considerably. No longer are the people who are fairly healthy bedded in their homes; the current residents are more frail and aged than previous residents. However, we must continue to move in that direction. Indeed, the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, of which I was a member, brought down a major recommendation that a multi-disciplinary assessment team, comprising the patient's doctor and various other health people, should assess patients before they move into the nursing homes. We also recommended that, having moved into the nursing home, a patient should be reassessed after three months to make sure that the placement has been appropriate. So many people move into nursing homes, and they can be rehabilitated and moved out after a short period. We also recommended that all nursing homes should provide some diversional therapy. We also said that they should supply some respite care. If a certain number of beds were set aside in nursing homes, subsidised by the Government, for respite care, I believe that this would be of considerable assistance in keeping the elderly in their own homes. The situation arises so frequently where a daughter, who visits her mother regularly and makes sure that everything is all right for her and that she is in good health, has to go away with the family on a holiday. She ought to be able to do that knowing that when she returns she can again take up the job of looking after her mother. In so many cases, daughters do not consider it a burden to look after their mother in that situation; they consider it a joy. If while the daughter was on holiday the mother could be moved into respite care just for that period, it would assist families to be able to look after their elderly. In the second reading speech, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) gave the four basic goals of the legislation. With these goals we certainly agree. The goals are as follows: Aged and disabled people should as far as possible be supported in their own homes, in their own communities. I have already spoken about this at length and underlined the importance that the Opposition sees in that. The next goal is: Aged and disabled people should be supported by residential services only where other support systems are not appropriate to meet their needs. Again, the Opposition would agree wholeheartedly with that. The next goal is: Services should be provided in an atmosphere and using processes which promote as far as possible rehabilitation and restoration of function. The manner in which these services are provided should develop and enhance personal freedom and independent functioning of all residents. We saw that when we attended some of the nursing homes. Some of them supplied very good rehabilitation services and the residents were able to function very happily in that atmosphere. The fourth goal is: Services should be based on a recognition that, for many people, discharge to a residential service providing a less intensive form of care or to a community-based support service will be a possible and desirable outcome. The Minister then went on to say that if there were to be an emphasis on hostel financing, away from nursing home financing-I underline what Senator Crowley said when she commented that there is no suggestion in the legislation that the number of nursing home beds be decreased-the increase in nursing homes would be governed. So the increase in the number of nursing homes will not be as great as it has been in the past, but the financing will be put into hostel accommodation. In that, the Minister has said that five matters must have consideration. These are as follows: the requirement for flexible planning, which provides for monitoring, evaluation and changes where necessary, including more integration with community services; a publicised and better resourced hostel sector so that hostels can care for increasingly dependent aged people . . . At the moment they do not provide for increasingly dependent aged people, and that is an area for which the Government intends to increase finances. Another matter is: the extension of residential care services beyond hostels to other forms of accommodation such as group housing arrangements. The Government sees it not only in the area of hostels but also in group housing arrangements. The next matter is: the expansion of community services to assist those elderly people most at risk of premature and inappropriate institutionalisation. The last matter is the importance of carefully developing a process of assessment so that it will gain support from consumers-that is, the elderly-the professionals, who look after them, and the service providers. This legislation covers only a couple of those areas. There are several areas that have not been approached by the Government in this legislation, and I dare say that it hopes to move to those areas in the future. This was referred to by Senator Giles when she spoke of the inappropriate placing of so many of our young in nursing homes. As we went around, we found the results of many car crashes. The young, because of their disabilities, have been placed in nursing homes. This was most inappropriate. We found young, mentally alert people in wheel-chairs or with various forms of disability, unable to communicate with people of their own age, unable to undertake the activities that would be appropriate for them, and surrounded by elderly people. We really must move in the direction of giving them an opportunity of being placed in appropriate care. Our Committee's recommendation was that nursing homes specifically for young people be moved from the nursing home program to a more appropriate scheme-for example, the handicapped persons assistance program. I know that that would be a very expensive way of going about this matter, but we viewed one very successful scheme under which the young were all in one very large house. Each had his or her independent bedroom, and they moved around and socialised together. That was most appropriate. They all seemed fairly happy there. Some were able to go home at weekends, where their wife or husband, as the case may be, could tend to them for just that weekend, and then they would return to the home arrangement. We must work in that area. Another area that has not been fully examined and one which needs appropriate action is that of the confused and psychiatric patient. So many nursing homes are unable to supply proper facilities for this group of people. So many criticisms are levelled against nursing homes because the patient has to be tied, either in a chair beside the bed or in the bed. In many cases this criticism is most unjustified because there is no other way that the nursing home could possibly keep a confused or psychiatric patient away from harm. Indeed, if proper facilities are not available, there is often no alternative, because the majority of such patients will wander at large, either out on to the road, where he or she may get run over, or into areas that are most dangerous for such people. We did see some very appropriate and very nice nursing homes with large gardens and walled areas where the psychiatric or confused patients were able to wander, and they appeared to be very happy in those circumstances. The third group that I believe we should be looking at in a more compassionate way is the ethnic elderly. We were told that when the ethnic elderly become aged they move back to their original customs, even though they may have been successfully integrated into the Australian community until then. They want their ethnic meals and they revert to their original language. We were told that it was most appropriate in those instances for nurses at least to be able to translate the language used and that these elderly people should be able to get the type of meals they want. Senator Peter Baume has spoken about the amendments the Opposition will put forward. As I have already said, the Opposition agrees entirely with the legislation before the Senate. The proposed amendments are designed to give the Parliament more scrutiny and control, rather than relying entirely on ministerial power. I believe that the Government will agree with this proposition. I am sure that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) would not want to have the power unto himself; I am sure he would be far happier with parliamentary scrutiny. I believe he will accept at least some of the amendments. It is extremely pleasing for me to join in a debate where there is general agreement by all parties in the Parliament, where the Government and the Opposition can come together for the good of one section of the community. It is even more pleasing for me when that section of the community is the aged. It is, as it should be, a situation where both sides of the Parliament have joined to enable our elderly as far as possible to be supported in their own homes and in their own communities. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(5.53) —It seems that all parties agree that the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill is a congenial one, and we will be happy to see it passed. It certainly represents a step in the right direction. When this Government takes a step such as this I wonder whether it has not lost its way! Be that as it may, we had better grasp this legislation while we can. It represents another chapter in the saga of the Federal Government wrestling with the nursing homes monster that it created many years ago. I happen to have been in medical practice before the Federal Government decided to help the nursing home industry. In those days it was a congenial part of medical practice. There were a few large nursing homes run by the religious and charitable institutions but there were many more small nursing homes scattered throughout the suburbs of the big cities and in the towns around the country. Most of the people were looked after at home. It was just after the war and there was a tremendous amount of community goodwill in those days. Service groups such as the Rotary clubs, the Australian Jaycees, various guilds and Meals on Wheels used to help people looking after others who needed nursing home care in their homes. There was no shortage of beds. When a doctor was out visiting a patient he and the family could see when the time a patient would need nursing home care was approaching. They could pick which nursing home had the facilities and the various therapies available for that particular patient, get in touch with the matron or the sister in charge and then the matron or the sister would visit the patient with the doctor, talk to the family and see whether the one suited the other. We did not need any assessment teams such as the Government is introducing now, at an initial cost of something like $16.5m, to make sure that a low cost patient is not in a high cost bed. Back in those days the assessment team was the family, the patient, the doctor and the sister in charge of the nursing home. It was all done as part of looking after the patient and, when the time came, the patient went into the nursing home. That arrangement meant that patients were living in a nursing home that was rather similar to the home they had come from. They were near their relatives for ease of visiting during visiting hours. They could be visited by grandchildren, if they wanted, and if they were well enough they could have outings. They could be taken to church or shopping, or just for a drive. The patients could take family portraits and even articles of their own furniture and things that they felt more comfortable with into the homes. Any sloppy service was very quickly picked up by the staff, the visiting doctor, the family or the patient. There was no need for myriad inspectors. In those days any faults with feeding, bathing or nursing were quickly picked up and amicably rectified. I do not recall a lot of problems. Undoubtedly there was some variation in the quality of the nursing homes, but nothing like the variations that have been disclosed by the report of the Senator Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, which I think are a direct result of the government assistance given to nursing homes. The Government decided to intervene, in about the middle of the 1950s, and the method it chose was open-ended funding for nursing homes. Of course once open-ended funding was introduced there was an immediate proliferation of nursing homes throughout the country. It became one of the biggest and best businesses in the country and it was not long before the Government realised that it had created an open-ended financial monster. Inevitably on came the Government restrictions, controls and regulations that dictated what type of buildings could be used as nursing homes, their siting, what sort of staffing they would have, their staff-patient ratios and what fees they would charge. Accreditation was brought it. There were a whole lot of terms and conditions that increased costs above even their existing level. The licensing of nursing homes was removed from the field of State governments because of the open-ended funding, and joint Federal-State licensing teams were formed which allocated beds on a population ration basis. Naturally they had a very slow turnover and could not pick where new beds or extensions to homes were required, and dislocations started to appear. Hostels started to appear as a means of providing cheaper care, respite care appeared, independent living units appeared, home help appeared. In the days before the Government stepped in the flow of patients was naturally from their own homes, where most of them were looked after, to an independent living unit or a hostel if it was available, to a nursing home and then to a hospital. Of course, once the Government stepped in with open-ended funding all the people wanted to go to nursing homes and hospitals because that is where they got the greatest rebate for their medical insurance. So there was a glut at that end. The whole thrust of this legislation is to reverse the patient flow to take them out of the high cost end of hospitals and nursing homes and encourage them, using the financial incentive, back into the hostels, the independent living units and their own homes. A vast range of community home care is envisaged to help this flow of patients back to their own homes. Of course, that is the right direction, but that is where they all were in the first place, before the Government tried to assist nursing home patients. Honourable senators have mentioned in this debate that the problem has been the government subsidy. Of course, government subsidy means government control. As I have explained, dislocations occur where we get the low cost patient in the high cost bed and where we do not have the development of the industry that we should have. We have heard mentioned in the debate this afternoon that young people who have been disabled have not been looked after, that old, mentally deranged people do not have facilities available to them; but that is all because those parts of the industry were not allowed to develop as a result of the types of nursing homes that developed under the open-ended funding. Had the industry been left alone I am sure that by now those areas would have been adequately catered for. However, the government controls were imposed, the dislocations occurred, costs went up, and restrictions were imposed. Right at this moment many nursing homes are in need of extensions and many areas could do with more nursing homes, particularly in my own area in south-east Queensland. On the Gold Coast where I live there is a need for extensions and additions to nursing homes. Of course, with the Government committee deciding now many beds will go where, it is all taking too long and often it is not being decided. This Bill, in particular, will put restrictions on the numbers of nursing home beds that will be allowed in the future simply because the Government is subsidising them. I know of nursing homes that would be quite prepared to put on any extension that is necessary, and put patients in there and not receive a subsidy for them but they cannot do that because once a nursing home bed is recognised and registered it attracts a subsidy and it has to have the subsidy. So the Government refuses these nursing homes extensions or additions, and it even refuses to allow new nursing homes. One of the easiest ways out of the problem would be for the Government to allow nursing homes to make additions or extensions and allow new nursing homes that do not attract a subsidy at all, in order to get us back to where we were. Local needs change. Quite often they change rapidly, particularly in a State such as Queensland, which is decentralised and has new towns appearing in mining areas, for example. They need the facility of nursing home care so that younger people can have their parents or grandparents with them when they go to isolated areas. By the time the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) gets around to making a decree the need will probably be over, or it will be very desperate. With any luck this legislation will mean a reduction in real terms in the government subsidy to nursing homes. In other words, there will be a bigger gap between the fee charged and the subsidy the Government pays. It may sound a little callous and harsh, but every step we retreat from the government subsidy is a step in the right direction and it will be better for all of us. It is just a pity that the Government does not reduce personal income tax by the amount of money it will save with this Bill. All the talk we have heard about tax reductions under this Government has been only rhetoric. Taxes are higher and money is being taken away from the people, so it will be more difficult for them to manage. Nevertheless, this is still a step in the right direction. It is cruel to decrease services and increase taxes. If the Government would reduce personal income tax so that people could better afford private care that would take an enormous load off the Government. I liken this step to the Government removing the subsidy to private hospitals. Some $140m a year has just been removed from the private hospitals. I actually see that as a good step. I think the Government was probably trying to drive patients out of the private hospitals and have them all go to public hospitals, but because the private hospitals are now not subject to receiving the Government subsidy it will lead to a freer and better type of private hospital care and I think we will see an upsurge in private hospital care in Australia that is freed from the thraldom of government. There are two main purposes of the Bill. The first one is the grants for capital works-grants up to the full amount of the capital cost of buildings for aged or disabled persons, so long as the grants are used exclusively to finance disabled groups. The second purpose I have been talking about is the new growth control of nursing home beds. As has been mentioned, we want to move some amendments to the Bill. These amendments were discussed by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and I understand that they have been discussed with the Minister. With any luck he will be amenable to those amendments, particularly as there is obviously no provision for a review of a departmental secretary's decision on whether a nursing home facility is necessary for a disadvantaged group. The point I want to leave with the Minister-I would like to have it answered if possible-is that thought be given to allowing the construction of new beds which do not attract a subsidy from the Government. I think that would be a major step that could help to relieve a lot of the problems of the nursing home industry in Australia today. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.07) —I shall not speak at great length on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill, which is before the Senate, because the Opposition is supporting it. Other senators have spoken to this Bill, but I wish to refer to some aspects as they affect the Australian Capital Territory. I have spoken previously about some of these matters. I have told the Senate that there are over 240 citizens in the Australian Capital Territory who have been classified as being in need of nursing home beds but who are on a waiting list and are not able to obtain them. It is necessary to remember that this is the case while we talk about other forms of care. The home and community care program enables people to remain in their own homes for a longer time. For many that is desirable, it is what they want, and undoubtedly it is the cheapest way of caring for a person. Of course, there are some who eventually get to the stage where they are not able to care for themselves. In some instances, to leave them alone and merely give attention periodically leaves them in a totally isolated situation. They are merely existing in their own homes without really being able to enjoy life at all or get any assistance towards rehabilitation. I also recognise that the concept of developing more hostels meets some of the need. In fact, I think a lot of people would welcome the opportunity to live in a hostel environment where they have the opportunity to mix with others and enjoy the life that can be obtained from having more people around them. That still does not address the fact that there are people who require nursing home care eventually, and they are not all the frail aged. Earlier in the debate we heard about those younger people who for various reasons fall into the category of needing the quite intensive care that comes with nursing home care. I refer to the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review report which was prepared by the Department of Community Services and which was tabled in, I think, April this year. It refers in a couple of places to the Territory. In one part, in reference to numbers of people, there is the statement: The rate of increase will be fairly stable in all States, while the two Territories- that is, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory- will experience a more rapid increase in the numbers of the aged. That would lead me to conclude that the present number of 240 people who are waiting for nursing home beds in the Australian Capital Territory will grow if this report is correct. The report also gives details of the overall placements and bed provision. There we see that presently, on the basis of number of beds per thousand people over the age of 70, the rate in the Australian Capital Territory is much lower than in other States and Territories-57.9 per cent for nursing homes and 33.2 per cent for hostels. I endorse the comments made by Senator Sheil that the present system, whereby the granting of a licence for nursing home beds must attract a subsidy, needs to be reviewed and that nexus needs to be broken so that there can be a place for private nursing home beds which do not attract a subsidy. There may not be call for a great many of them, but I think there would be call for some which would be occupied and which would take the pressure away from the number of beds which presently attract a subsidy. I think that needs to be looked into. I also question whether the present cost, alleged to be about $20,000 per nursing home bed on an annual basis, is realistic or whether savings could be made in that area. While there are subsidies the cost is likely to be higher than it ought to be. The report on which I have referred also indicates that, on present indications, by the year 1996 the Australian Capital Territory will need an additional 848 nursing home beds. Under the proposal that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) announced recently, the Australian Capital Territory will get an additional 180 hostel beds but only 20 nursing home beds between now and 1989. I think that is fairly dismal news for the families who are worried and concerned about the welfare of the frail aged to whom I have referred as being presently in need of nursing home accommodation but who cannot get it. In addition to the 240 who are waiting, I would say that 40 or more in our hospitals need nursing home beds. They do not really need hospital accommodation, but they are not able to obtain the nursing home beds that they need. When the situation becomes desperate in Canberra, as it is at present, it is necessary to look to New South Wales. Some of the elderly people from this Territory have been taken to Eden, Pambula, Sydney and beyond. This is almost inhuman in terms of the stress under which it puts the aged person and the stress for the families who have to make arrangements to send elderly relatives so far away from them. It is difficult for them to visit. It is certainly unsettling for an elderly person to have to adjust to being removed from his or her family in that way. I could spend the rest of the afternoon recounting stories, which I have heard in my electorate office, of people who suddenly need nursing home beds but who are not able to get them. It can happen quite suddenly. An elderly person who has managed to live by himself or herself for a considerable time, with support from family or perhaps from Meals on Wheels and the other services which are provided, may have an accident or fall-it particularly happens to elderly women who may break bones-and may no longer be able to live in that way and may require a nursing home bed. In Canberra, even a hostel bed is hard to come by. I have the figures for the beds that are available. There are 126 at Jindalee Nursing Home; 128 at Allambee Nursing Home; beds in the hospitals are being used as nursing home beds; there are 126 private nursing home beds and 335 hostel beds. On the evidence that we have as to the needs of this community, they are well short of the numbers that are required. We do not have beds available for people to convalesce. We do not have beds available for respite care. If older people who need to convalesce are sent home and are living by themselves, it frequently means that they will be back in hospital before too long because they are not able to cope. It is a vicious circle of having a shortage of hospital beds in Canberra so that people cannot be kept in them for as long as they require and not having enough nursing home beds either. One way or another, as a community we have an obligation to look after our elderly and those who are sick and cannot fully care for themselves. I suggest that at present we are not doing it properly. It would seem from this report of the Department of Community Services that, in addition to the 200 extra beds that the Minister has announced, we will need another 648 in the seven-year period to 1996. I do not think I would be unreasonable if I expressed some pessimism about whether they will be available, but I say that they must be available. In the Australian Capital Territory we have in hospital beds and nursing home beds people who have come here from other places because their families are here. I believe there is a distortion in the figures because of that. It is my view that we are not adequately providing at present for people who need this sort of care in this community. I welcome the move that is made in this legislation. As I said, the Opposition is supporting it. I take the opportunity to refer specifically to the problems that exist in my electorate, and I hope they will be addressed before too long. I refer also to the scrutiny of Bills report which has been referred to. I hope the Minister will deal with the matters that have been raised within that report because I think they are important issues as to the discretion conferred on the secretary. In relation to a number of sections the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills refers to the lack of parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee reported to the Senate that it recognises that it is the view of the Administrative Review Council that decisions which involve apportioning of finite resources are not appropriate for review on the merits, but it also goes on to say: Nevertheless the Committee draws clauses 19 and 32 to the attention of Senators in that they may be considered to make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable administrative decisions. I think these observations of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee ought to be dealt with by the Government, and I hope the Minister will do this. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(6.18) —I thank honourable senators for their thoughtful contributions to this debate on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986. This area of nursing homes, hostels, accommodation and care for the aged generally is not an easy one. It is one with which governments in this country have been grappling since, I suppose, the Second World War. It is an interesting situation in that so many people have so many firm views on the subject and so many people have views on the subject which are just not right. I will refer, not in any critical way, to what the last two speakers said. Both Senator Sheil and Senator Reid referred to the possibility that nursing homes could be built without subsidy and that maybe this would be a solution to the problem. There is nothing-- Senator Reid —We did not say it was a solution. It may help, in part, by providing some beds, not nursing homes. You are misinterpreting what we said. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry, but the honourable senator has misheard what I said. I said that she and Senator Sheil suggested that part of the problem may be solved by providing nursing home beds without subsidy. Senator Sheil, at least, and, I thought, Senator Reid asked: Why is that not possible? My response to that is: It is perfectly possible. There is nothing in the world to stop anyone building a nursing home and filling it with people without Commonwealth subsidy. Senator Reid —They have to be licensed, and that attracts a subsidy. Senator GRIMES —The licensing authorities are the State governments. In the Australian Capital Territory certainly it involves the Federal Government. Senator Sheil is quite wrong. There is nothing to stop people doing that. There is nothing that the Commonwealth would want to do to stop people doing that. If people want to build nursing homes without subsidy, they can. If they want to run them without subsidy, they can. The licensing authorities, I am sure, in many of the States would be only too happy for them to do so. However, we have in this country a problem, which Senator Reid, I think, touched on, of a very high percentage of nursing home beds for the elderly population. We have a maldistribution of nursing home beds, I am the first to admit, which we have been trying to correct. In the past nursing homes in, say, the big conurbations of Sydney and Melbourne tended to be built in the eastern suburbs where there were appropriate old homes and mansions, but the people tended to be in the western suburbs where there were not the mansions et cetera which could be converted into nursing homes. Only in recent times has there been a better distribution of nursing home beds. Also, under the legislation previously in place, people tended to build nursing homes rather than hostels because of the increased amounts of subsidy they could get for nursing homes and people tended to believe that the only alternative to staying in one's home, when elderly, was to go into a nursing home. In this country people tended to believe that nursing homes were the only alternative form of accommodation. As the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review pointed out, and as various organisations in the area have pointed out for many years, to concentrate on building the most expensive and the most dependent form of care accommodation for the aged and not to concentrate on the provision of services or on the provision of hostels or less dependent accommodation led to the distortion we have. All governments with good faith and all parties involved in government or potentially in government in this country have been taking a conscientious approach to this very real difficulty. Senator Peter Baume, Senator Walters, Senator Powell and Senator Bjelke-Petersen-I think every speaker-made the very valid point, which I agree with, that there is a need for more home and community services if we are to provide less of this more dependent form of accommodation. We certainly agree with that. We have an agreed plan, as is known, I think, with the State governments to develop more home and community care services. In the last Budget we announced further home and community care funding totalling $94m over four years to further increase growth in home and community care services. We have had very good examples in some isolated situations where this can be extremely effective. I know of one city in Victoria where nine years ago there was a 40-bed nursing home with a waiting list of 150. For reasons which obviously involved people thinking way ahead of their time, instead of succumbing to the pressure to build more nursing home beds that community built a hostel, provided more independent-type accommodation, and, what is more important, provided community-based home and community care services. Now, nine years later, that community has a 40-bed nursing home, as it had before, and a waiting list of nil. The temptation in those days was to double or even treble the size of the nursing home to overcome an apparent lack of nursing home beds in that area. In fact, the problem was solved in a much more socially and economically acceptable way by providing that mix of services which resulted in the nursing home of 40 beds nine years ago being a perfectly satisfactory level of nursing home beds in that town. Only last week I was in Scone in New South Wales, a very enlightened and small community which, over the last few years, has provided independent-type units scattered throughout the town, a nursing home and a hostel and which now has facilities worth something like $4m of which that relatively small town provided $2m-worth. That town has a very satisfactory care of the aged program and is doing it in an economical way and in a way of which the town is very proud and of which anyone in the community would be very proud. All these things are possible. They would not be possible if we proceeded down the track we were proceeding down in the past whereby the number of nursing home beds was increasing rapidly, the cost per bed to the taxpayer was rising at something like twice the rate of average weekly earnings and we were facing in the long run a situation in which the community would have great difficulty supporting this relatively unsatisfactory form of care. Senator Powell noted that the Bill provides for two elements, improved planning and improved hostel growth and said that, with these two elements of the Government's announced five-point residential care reform strategy, we also have to address the other three elements-expanded assessment, greater flexibility in the provision of accommodation and further HACC expansion. I have said that we agree with the further expansion of home and community care. We agree also with the need for better assessment. In fact, in the last Budget we provided an increase from $4m to anticipated expenditure of $13m in 1988-89 for geriatric assessment. This assessment does not mean just a gate-keeping role to keep people out of this dependent nursing home accommodation. What it means is assessing people's needs so that they have a better idea of the choices they have in their retirement and the choices available to them in the community to ensure that they get the care which is appropriate to their needs and which maintains their independence and their dignity as individuals. If people's view is that the only choice they have is to stay at home or to go into an expensive, dependent-making nursing home, that is what they will think of. If they are afraid that some day they may need to go into a nursing home and that the best thing for them to do is to put their names on a waiting list for fear that when they get sick five or 10 years down the track they will need to go into a nursing home, we get a distorted picture of nursing home waiting lists. That is what happens now. When we send out geriatric assessment teams and they are working satisfactorily and talking to people who are on nursing home waiting lists, the very first thing that happens is that those nursing home waiting lists go down. We find on them people who should not be on them. We find people on them who do not know that there are alternatives for them in the future. We are meeting now with State governments, with consumers and with provider professional and union bodies to help to plan the expansion of the geriatric assessment program. We are also acting on several fronts to develop greater flexibility in the type of accommodation in which care can be provided, again to get away from this obsession with nursing homes. We have discussions with State housing authorities, who in some States are providing group housing and making houses available to organisations which are looking at innovative forms of accommodation for the aged. We have funded the Abbeyfield organisation-in fact, I opened the first Abbeyfield house in Victoria recently-which is encouraging the promotion of small scale community models, in this case in two houses specially modified for the individuals involved. We are providing information and assisting service providers to look at concepts such as hostels without walls and at providing services in small community groups so that people can stay in their own homes or in independent units and retain that independence they want. We are trying to expand the range of special services to meet the needs of special groups. There was a meeting today with the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled to develop plans for special services for the aged with special disabilities-the blind and the deaf. We have proposals to improve services to the ethnic aged, following the release of the ethnic aged working party report which I received today. We had meetings in all States with the ethnic community councils to improve the services to the ethnic aged, a problem which is becoming increasingly apparent to all of us as the percentage of ethnic people, people born outside Australia, in the over 65 age group increases in this country. We expect a threefold increase in funding this year to provide special dementia care in hostels, taking it to a level of about $1.5m, because as this population ages the biggest percentage increase in the aged will be in those over 80. It is in that group that we get the higher percentages of people with dementia or afflictions which cause them to need the special nursing care that we will have to provide. We have to ensure that the bed provision is adequate. Several honourable senators raised the issue of needs based planning. Senator Powell, I think, expressed concern that nursing home bed numbers would be reduced or that nursing home bed provision would not be adequate. I must make this point in response to a point that was made by Senator Peter Baume in his speech in the second reading debate: There will be no reduction in nursing home beds. In fact, we will need more nursing home beds between now and the year 2010. What we do need, though, is a curb on the future growth of nursing homes so that the ratio of nursing home beds to the aged population will fall. But this will be offset by an increase in the ratio of hostel beds to the aged people in our community. Better assessment-by which I mean, necessarily, a better knowledge by elderly people and their relatives of the choices-will mean that pressure will be taken off nursing homes by avoiding inappropriate admissions to nursing homes, a problem which has been known and which has been mentioned in every report that has been put down inside and outside this Parliament in the last 15 years. This problem of people inappropriately in nursing homes because there is nowhere else for them is a problem which has bedevilled us. Also, as Senator Reid mentioned, there is the problem of people being inappropriately in acute care hospital beds because no one else has a place for them. These people cause a blockage for the entry of elderly people into nursing homes. We have a consultancy on needs based planning which is nearing completion and which will guide future planning arrangements. The advisory committees which will be appointed will ensure proper sensitivity to consumer and other local needs in the planning process. The existing planning process tends to be a reactive one, but we need to take into account the very factors that Senator Reid talked about, such as the fact that in the Australian Capital Territory people tend to come into the area from outside to retire and be with relatives and later look for nursing homes. We want to take this into account. Unlike the existing nursing home legislation, this Bill will provide flexibility to meet actual and identifiable needs. Senator Bjelke-Petersen made the very valid point that there is no point in our providing more hostels and providing them with adequate funding if they are going to become de facto nursing homes as the residents become more and more dependent. I agree entirely with that very real concern of Senator Bjelke-Petersen's. Hostels should not become de facto nursing homes with all the trappings of institutionalisation such as acute medical care, thereby becoming the pseudo hospitals that so many nursing homes become. Hostels are able to provide a better lifestyle for people and it is in the interests of the aged to enter them rather than nursing homes when they can no longer stay at home, because they can maintain independence and a much freer and more natural and sensible lifestyle. It may be that in the future we have to look at providing extra funding, even more than we do now, for those people who become a bit frail in nursing homes, because I think the concept of people gradually moving from one place to the other as they become more and more frail is not necessarily a good one. But the fact of the matter is that only about 7 per cent of the people in our community ever end up in a nursing home or a hostel. Most people do not go near them. There is not this transition of the whole mass of the population from home to hostel to nursing homes. There never was, there is not now and there will not be in the future. We know that some hostels will have to change their functions now. We know that there will be, compared to now, some increased dependency of people in hostels, and we recognise this by increasing the personal care subsidies in the Bill and in fact indexing payments of this type. We need to provide services to those people in hostels to ensure that they are not dumped there, ending up in the situation about which Senator Bjelke-Petersen expressed concern. Senator Powell welcomed the widening of options for the aged. At the same time she cautioned against reduction in expenditure on aged services. In the Budget the Government announced the strategy of redistributing the resources for care of the aged people away from nursing homes to hostel and community care and committed itself to an extra expenditure of roughly $24m in 1986-87, $80m in 1987-88 and $150m in 1989 on these initiatives. In addition, there are increases in the funding provided for ongoing services. The residential care appropriations in 1986-87 are to total something like $1.2 billion, which is an increase of about $86m or $90m, I think, on last year's expenditure. This is, as I said, a complex and difficult area. It is one we are grappling with. It is one which I believe this legislation will enable us to grapple with much better than we could in the past. There are many myths surrounding the provision of aged people's accommodation in this country. Among them is the myth that people who go to nursing homes should go in there, stay there, die there and never come out. Hence people tend to burn their bridges. There should be a rehabilitative function in nursing homes. People do go into nursing homes and, with a bit of care and attention, improve. They have the capacity to come out and they should come out. Some poignant literature has been written on this matter in recent times. There are those who believe that we should return to the far gone days in this country when people stayed with their relatives all their lives. In fact, surveys have shown, and the paper `The Greying of Australia' has demonstrated, that there never was a time in this country's history when a majority of people in fact stayed at home with their children and their relatives. Most people did in fact lead and live independent lives and will do so in the future-even with the aging of the population and more people reaching those ages. As Senator Reid mentioned, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills had some concerns with aspects of the legislation. I, in fact, have written to the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Tate, answering, I believe, some of those concerns. Most of those concerns are taken up by Senator Peter Baume in his amendments, particularly the concerns about non- reviewable decisions and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny, which were raised by Senator Reid. I think probably those matters are best dealt with at the Committee stage, particularly when we deal with the matters raised by Senator Peter Baume in his amendments. I have been trying to speak to Senator Peter Baume since the second reading debate began today. He intimated to me that we certainly would be able to come to a compromise on some of his amendments. I am certainly happy to do that. With that in mind, I have in fact produced some Government amendments which are alternatives to the Opposition amendments which have been circulated and I will circulate them. Again they are the best dealt with in Committee, when I hope we can sort them out. I think the compromise amendments are reasonable and will be acceptable to the Opposition, as Opposition members will see in debate. I thank honourable senators for their contributions and co-operation. This is an important area. These legislative changes are crucial to the sensible development of care for the aged in our community and I hope they will be welcomed by the majority of the community. I know that some people have done pretty well out of the existing system and are uneasy about changes. The simple fact is that it has been recognised for some years by governments of both political parties, by operators of nursing homes, and by organisations who represent the aged, that it is impossible for this community to go on in the way it has in the past. We have carefully considered the recommendations of the committees that have looked at this problem for the last decade. We have considered the representations that have been made to us by parliamentarians and by those involved in the industry and we believe that we have come up with legislation that will not be perfect, as no legislation ever is, but at least sets down the rules of the game. It is up to those of us who are playing the game at government level and industry level to ensure that the game advances and that we reach the sorts of goals we are looking for. I urge honourable senators to support the legislation. I understand from a note passed to me by the Opposition Whip that Senator Peter Baume is unavoidably delayed. Therefore, I suggest that after the second reading vote, it may be sensible to adjourn the debate until he is available. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That consideration in the Committee of the Whole be adjourned until a later hour this day. Debate resumed from 11 November, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(6.45) —When the debate was adjourned, I was part of the way through my speech on these Appropriation Bills. Perhaps I should turn my attention to the question of taxation, which has been the meat of this parliamentary session, and no doubt will continue to be. The great debate is about tax, who should pay it and at what rates. Again and again, it is proposed by the Opposition that in some way people will pay more tax at their income level than they did previously. Although it has already been said, notably by Senator Maguire in his many excellent speeches in this chamber, it is worth repeating that since this Government came into office there has been a downward trend in the rates at which tax is levied on people earning income in this community. The first was in November 1984, when those on lower incomes had their rates of income tax reduced from 30 per cent to 25 per cent. By way of the further tax cuts, that will be reduced by one per cent to 24 per cent. The next lot of tax cuts will come into operation on 1 December this year, and again at the risk of being repetitious I point out that it is important to realise what will happen then. The maximum tax rate anybody will pay, no matter what he earns, will be 49c, whereas when this Government came into power the maximum rate was 60c, and that looked like continuing. In addition, there will be an increase in the threshold of the amount of money people can earn before they have to pay tax. That will happen from 1 December 1986, when the tax free threshold will be lifted from its present level of $4,595 to $4,890, and from 1 July 1987, when it will be lifted to $5,100. There has been a rearrangement of the tax scales so that everybody who pays income tax will now have to pay at a lower percentage rate than was the situation before this Government came into office. Taxes have been imposed which were not imposed before. The classic is one that has common currency overseas, and that is the capital gains tax. That was applied to assets acquired after midnight on 19 September 1985. At the time it was imposed it was said that disaster would follow, and that is still being said. Well, if that disaster has happened or is about to happen, I point out that the Australian sharemarket does not seem to understand that. As was pointed out in the Sydney Morning Herald on 5 November 1986-I think Senator Maguire has already dealt with this in his address-`Market hits 42nd record this year'. The following passage appears in the body of the article under that headline: The market's breathless 86 per cent bull run over the past 18 months has some pundits such as EquitiLink executive directors Laurence Freedman and Brian Sherman saying the market is in an unstoppable phase. Senator Messner —Ha! Senator COONEY —Senator Messner laughs, and that may be reasonable from where he sits. No doubt Senator Messner is expecting and projecting that disaster will happen. Predictions of disaster have continued, but it has not happened. I simply use the capital gains tax as an illustration of what I am saying. The capital gains tax was imposed over a year ago on assets acquired after 19 September 1985, and Senator Messner predicted-it was his honest belief-that disaster would follow. However, that disaster seems to have had a short life span because at the moment the market is going at an all time high. Senator Messner —Is it not a fact that the capital gains tax is causing a shortage of scrip and forcing prices higher artificially? Senator COONEY —Senator Messner puts forward his explanation, but I am saying that the figures and the article to which I drew attention show that people still have great confidence in the market-so much so that they are buying scrip at record levels. Senator Messner says that there is another explanation for that, but if he examines the evidence of what has occurred, he will see that what I have said is correct. If Senator Messner's predictions were right, the price should have fallen. Let us take the abolition of the entertainment deduction. Again that was predicted to bring disaster and that has not happened. Somebody has to pay tax, and this point is worth repeating. In order to carry on a civilised society in which people, hopefully, get some sort of return from the society in which they live and to which they contribute, a government needs taxes. This argument is really not about whether tax should be imposed, but who should pay that tax. I quoted some figures earlier in the day which showed that many of our top companies are not paying their share of taxation. When Opposition members make protests about the tax burden being too great, whom are they defending? Are they defending the family man? Are they talking about the man who has a wife at home and two, three, four or five children? Are we talking about saving him from the incidence of taxation or are we talking about saving big companies? If one looks at the article in the Sydney Morning Herald of Wednesday, 29 October, to which I referred earlier, one sees that John Elliott's Elders-IXL paid 10.35 per cent by way of income tax in the period mentioned in the article, which was the last financial year. John Spalvins's David Jones paid 10.75 per cent and Alan Bond's Bond Corporation paid 13.95 per cent. When people talk about the heavy incidence of taxation, who do they think is affected by it? Certainly, the person who goes out into the work force, earns his money and brings it home to keep his wife and family-and much was made about this sort of person earlier in the day-is paying tax to enable the big companies to pay the sorts of rates of tax that I have just mentioned here. It is right and proper that the tax burden be redistributed so that people who can properly afford to pay the tax do so. It is in that context that the much-debated fringe benefits tax has been brought in. There has been a great controversy, tumult and shouting about the fringe benefits tax. But those who have made all the fuss have never been able to detract from that fundamental point of principle that those who earn big incomes, partly in cash and partly in terms of free houses, free cars, free school fees and what have you, should be made to contribute some part of that benefit towards those who do not have such benefits and have to pay income tax at a much higher level than they otherwise would if everybody paid his tax. If everybody paid his tax, the sorts of problems that we have now would not be with us. One answer that is put to that argument is that we must encourage enterprise. I wish to a say a few words about that. Of course enterprise must be encouraged, but it must be encouraged correctly. Again and again Opposition members seem to be saying that the people who pay the level of tax that this Government will soon reduce should not only continue to pay it, but should also take a cut in their incomes in order to make the country more competitive. If we analyse the competitiveness of this country simply in terms of wage levels, we will not get out of our present difficulties. The problems we have with the sorts of goods that we produce are not simply created by the level of our wages. That is not so in any particular case. We must make an analysis-and this has been done by our redoubted leader, Senator Button, over the years-to ascertain sensibly how our industries have been developing and whether they have been developing with the necessary initiative, drive and attention to technology. If they have not, some encouragement should be give to them and some demands made upon them. In my closing few minutes I wish to say something about industrial relations policy. If this country is to go forward and develop as it should, if this country is to get out of its present economic problems and the social problems that may flow from them, it must do so on a co-operative basis and all sections-those who manage, those who work and those who provide capital for the industries which give us an income-should co-operate. Behind the accord, whether it be mark 1, mark 2 or the proposed mark 3, that concept reigns. This is the one way forward. That co-operation and ability to work together will see us through the present situation. Co-operation will not come if the Opposition makes continual attacks on the unions, on the Australian Council of Trade Unions and upon those organisations and instruments which represent the vast majority of workers in this country. The recipe that has been put forward in the Opposition's industrial policy-I believe that certain aspects of it were launched yesterday-is a recipe for conflict, disaster and a lowering of the incomes that we can earn. Senator Messner —Rubbish! Senator COONEY —Do you mean that it is rubbish that the unions and the workers contribute or is it rubbish that your policies will attack the ACTU? Senator Messner —It is rubbish that our policy is confrontationist. Senator COONEY —I am glad to hear that. It will be interesting to see what happens. I have no doubt that everyone in the community will be well able to see whether the Opposition's policies are confrontationist to the ACTU, the unions generally, other peak organisations and the employees of this country. Let us hope that Senator Messner is right on this matter. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(6.57) —Today we are debating the Appropriation Bills and as these Bills authorise the Government's finances for the current year, it gives us an opportunity to review briefly the Government's Budget strategy and to look at it in an overall context. The first point that must be made about the Government's Budget strategy is that there is no real strategy at all. This Budget represents an attempt to kowtow to international money markets. It is based on the fact that we must screw the economy down as the only way to solve our balance of payments problem. This is a point of view that the Australian Democrats absolutely reject. There are other approaches, there are imaginative ways of solving our balance of payments problem, which is the essential problem in our community and this has not been addressed in this Budget. The tragedy from Australia's point of view is that there has emerged a consensus between the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia. The policies of both those parties on how the economy should be managed are identical. We now have two parties in this country-the `Liborals' and the Democrats. The Democrats stand alone as a small party putting forward an alternative method of managing the economy and we are doing it against the two major parties which have combined. Time and time again we have seen during the Budget debates that the Government's Budget Bills have been passed with the support of the Liberal and National parties. The Democrats have moved constructive amendments and these have been voted down by the Liborals, by the coalition of the two major parties. Thus, the alternative is not really being put to the electorate. I want to take this opportunity to point out that there is an alternative. It is critical that this alternative be discussed in the community and at least acted on in some important areas. There is no fundamental strategy. The first thing that we could have seen in this Budget was a long term indicative plan over a period of three or five years that would have allowed us to move the economy in a new direction. No such long term indicative plan has come forward. The plan should have stated: `We will have growth of 2 1/2 or 3 per cent. If that growth pattern is to emerge, we have to tackle the export problem. This means that we have to have a rapid development of our manufacturing industries and to buy less from overseas'. The essential problem is that we are spending money that we do not have. Nothing has really been done to stop the haemorrhaging of Australia's hard-earned foreign exchange. What can we do about that? There are various approaches. The first thing is that there seems to be around in the community an attitude that Australia must borrow money overseas and that, if it does not do that, it cannot continue to function. This is an attitude that does not have very much substance when we look at the facts. The fact is that 90 per cent of the capital that has gone into developing Australia over the last 30 years is Australian. Unfortunately, that 90 per cent Australian capital has gone into developing our infrastructure, into building roads and building houses, and the 10 per cent foreign money has been directed at taking over our wealth-producing industries, our manufacturing industries, our farming and so on. If we had a long term indicative plan, it would be possible over a period of five years for Australia to develop its resources without the hang-up that we must continue to borrow money. The fact is that we cannot afford to borrow money anyway. That has been the policy in the last 30 years and we are now in the position that we cannot meet the interest payments on the money that we have borrowed. If we cannot meet the interest payments on the money that we have borrowed, why do we keep borrowing? A family has to face such facts sooner or later. This country has to face the fact that our credit is running out. If our credit is running out, we have to turn around and look at our internal resources. That means that we have to spend less and earn more. We have to get a long term plan that brings those two fundamental approaches into some real economic strategy. Until we do that, I am afraid that Australia runs the risk of becoming bankrupt. The Government has given lip-service to various ad hoc approaches. For instance, it has said that we will advertise and try to get Australians to buy more Australian produced goods. But the fact is that no legislation has been introduced to bring in a buy Australian Act that would require people in this country, and particularly governments, where possible, to buy Australian made goods. There has been no attempt to slow down the takeover of Australia's manufacturing industries. The Government's attitude is that it does not matter who owns the industries any more; it does not matter whether they are Australian owned or foreign owned. The teeth of our Foreign Investment Review Board have been taken away. It would appear that it is now only a very small step before the Foreign Investment Review Board is disbanded altogether by this Government. It does matter who owns our industries. It does matter whether they are foreign owned or Australian owned. The fact is that about 50 per cent of our industries are now owned by overseas interests; the other 50 per cent are owned by about one per cent of the Australian population. Why does it matter that there is not a greater degree of Australian owned industry? It is for the very simple reason that it is a demonstrable fact that Australian owned industries export more; they are more export oriented; they are not inhibited by export franchises that apply to most of our overseas owned industries. Our foreign owned motor car companies are told to where they can export. They cannot look at the world as a potential market. It is also a demonstrable fact that overseas owned companies do not invest in research in this country. They like to do the research at their home bases. It can easily be shown that Australian owned industries have a much better record on research than foreign owned industries. For those two very important reasons we should be concerned about the degree of overseas ownership of our industries. There is no doubt that we have to look to our manufacturing industries to earn foreign exchange and to solve the problem of our balance of payments. Unfortunately, very little in a concrete way has been put forward as a plan to develop rapidly our manufacturing sector. The fact is that Australia is really still a Third World economy. We still rely on exports of our wool, coal, wheat, meat and minerals. Unfortunately, these products have a very low value added. With the exception of wool, they are trying to compete on a glutted world market, often with subsidised products from our competitors. The high value added manufacturing industries should be exporting. In comparison with other Western countries, Australia has a very poor record. Only about 15 per cent of our exports presently are manufactured goods while in other Western countries the percentage is much higher and more like 80 per cent. If we are not to be a Third World country but are to be in the league of industrialised countries, we have to do something about that pretty urgently. We have to do something about it now. This year our shortfall, our foreign debt, will probably be over $16 billion. It is a very critical shortfall. To continue on this course will only mortgage our future to pay for our current expenses. This strategy will send us broke in double quick time if it is continued. Our foreign debt is currently at $80 billion and is tipped to rise to over $100 billion by the end of next year, so the day of reckoning is not very far away. Under the Hawke Government we have seen more deregulation and more kowtowing to foreign markets than we have ever seen before in Australia's history. There will be no future if we continue to follow the path of financial deregulation. We must manage the economy. We cannot sit back and let market forces run it for us. That is a disastrous policy which has led us into this critical position right now. So what do we do about getting our manufacturing industries more competitive? What do we do to make our industries export oriented and to make them look at the whole world as their potential market? I said that we need a long term indicative plan. We need co-operation between government and industry, the unions and the work force, along the Japanese model. For instance, the Japanese Government takes responsibility for collecting data on potential markets all around the world and then calls the industries together and discusses those potential markets and what can be done to capture a realistic percentage of them. There is co-operation between industries and the Government. When the plan is sorted out and they have a realistic assessment of what of the potential world market the local industries can hope to capture, the Government sits down and co-operatively discusses with those industries whether they have to increase their productive capacity, if so to what degree and so on. The industries go away knowing that there is a plan and that they should spend money to develop their resources to meet that plan. For instance, they know that their Government will encourage development to a certain percentage in the automotive industry, the shipbuilding industry, the steel industry, the computer industry, the machine tool industry or whatever; there is that co-operation. We could do that but so far there has been very little progress, although the Government has at times paid some lip-service to a more co-operative approach to our manufacturing and export oriented industries. If we had this co-operative approach, the Government could be more selective in what sort of help it could give to industries which would be most effective, and what sorts of industries could be helped. It would be a rifle shot approach rather than the shotgun approach which tries to spread assistance widely through industries, many of which would not have export potential anyway. If our industries are to be competitive, we must get co-operation between unions and between managements. There has been virtually no attempt to develop this approach in this Budget or generally by the Government. There is no doubt that the success of Japanese industry has been due simply to its ability to harness the efforts, brain power and co-operation of the entire work force in the interests of making Japanese industries as efficient as possible. In the Toyota company last year, for instance, there were no fewer than 1.9 million suggestions from the workers of that company. There were about 38 suggestions per worker per year. Of those suggestions, 90 per cent were acted on by management. A company structure that allows the whole work force to be involved in that way, as it has been in the Toyota organisation, will win every time. It is not an approach that one can introduce overnight; it takes many years to get the confidence and trust of the people in the work force that one is genuinely interested in hearing their ideas and trying to work out better ways. But it can be done. A start must be made. Had this Government wished, it could have taken steps to encourage this to happen very quickly. There is before the Senate now an Employee Participation Bill of mine which is still awaiting debate and which lays down five criteria which, if adopted by companies, would make them eligible for government incentives. These are criteria such as the small group activity to which I have just alluded. The Bill also sets out criteria such as more employee share ownership or profit sharing techniques that allow the success of an enterprise to be shared with the whole work force. It sets out cellular organisational structures or profit centres around small groups of people, so that people can relate to each other and understand what is going on and are not just a part of an enormous hierarchy in which they are working away but do not realise where they are going. These initiatives are vitally important if we are to get our industries as efficient as the Japanese industries and as our competitor industries in other Western countries. Unfortunately, although there has been some talk by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, and his Department about industrial democracy and employee participation, virtually no action has occurred. This matter has been going on for a long time. Why can the Government not allow a Bill which is already before the Senate to be debated, and amended if necessary, get the legislation into place, and then let the broad range of industries right across Australia strive to meet the criteria of greater employee involvement and get things moving? It would not cost the Government much money. It is estimated that the cost would be less than $50m a year-a very small price to pay for getting our industries to a state in which they are able to compete and to export. Unemployment is a critical problem in Australia. It is a great tragedy but one which could be solved overnight if the Government wanted to do that. If we cannot offer everyone in Australia who wants to work employment for eight hours a day, surely what we should be doing is sharing the available work. There are many people, women in particular, who would be very happy to be able to work, say, three or four hours a day, rather than to work eight hours a day or not work at all. There are many people who are reaching retirement age who would like to work less than an eight-hour day. Why can we not share the available work amongst all those who wish to work? It means, of course, that we must negotiate with the unions and get an hourly rate, I suggest, rather than penalty rates and other work practices that prohibit our getting to a stage at which we can reasonably share the available work. But this can be done. If we had a system of enabling companies to negotiate with the unions on a whole range of issues for their particular company, it could be done. I am sure that it will never happen and that we will never solve our work practices problem unless we do it on a company-by-company basis. We will not do it centrally through the conciliation and arbitration system. It is my intention to introduce next week a Collective Agreements Bill, which would set up a legislative framework which would allow this direct negotiation on a broad range of issues on a company-by-company basis without cutting across the centralised wage fixing system. It would allow companies, if they so wished, voluntarily to engage in direct negotiations with the unions on a broad range of issues that affect the companies. The essential points about this Bill are that it lays down that the negotiations must be on an above-award basis-one cannot negotiate awards downwards, as I understand the Liberal Party will attempt to do if it ever gets into power-and that the trade union movement cannot be bypassed, so the negotiations must be undertaken with the trade union movement. With these two provisos, it is then possible to have collective agreements which allow broad negotiation over a whole range of issues. That is critically important. There is also before this Parliament a youth employment Bill, which again sets out to share the available work so that the unemployed youth of this country can work at least on a permanent part time basis and get work experience without getting involved in some of the Mickey Mouse schemes that are around today, under which it is said: `Here is four weeks work. You may work for that long and then at the end of four weeks you are unemployed again, on the scrap-heap'. That is disastrous for young people, but it is what is going on. Why can we not give unemployed youth a permanent part time work role in our society so that they become part of the work force, get the work experience and can apply for full time work in the sure knowledge that they are at least employed on a permanent part time basis? The other important problem is that of investment in our productive industries. That is not happening. Dr Mazouk, a visiting professor at Macquarie University, has put out a paper and will shortly be putting out a book on his research into the disparity between what he calls financial investment and productive investment. He has traced the trends in financial investment as opposed to productive investment over the last 30 years. It is found that it trends something like this: Back in the 1960s about 50 per cent of investment in this country went into productive areas, such as building industries, investing in machines and so forth, and 50 per cent went into financial investment such as putting money into the stock exchange and so forth. Right now, however, the overwhelming investment is going into financial investment and very little of it is going into productive investment. Why is that so? It is because there is a great incentive to invest in financial areas and a very great disincentive to invest in productive resources. One has only to see what is going on in the stock exchange to appreciate the exact extent of the problem. Enormous amounts of money have been invested this year and in previous years-for instance, $5.5 billion in defending and attempting to take over the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd alone. There has been no additional productive capacity to BHP with that $5.5 billion investment, and not one additional job was created in spite of that enormous investment. Something like $500m was borrowed from the Bank of New South Wales by the Bond Corporation to takeover Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd. Did that increase the efficiency of Castlemaine Tooheys? I suggest not. I suggest that that money was used simply in an attempt to get a Western Australian beer into the eastern markets. People are pursuing paper profits because that is the easiest way to make money. There is a tax incentive. If a company borrows money and uses that borrowed money to buy shares in another company, two things happen. First of all, the company can write off the interest on the money it has borrowed through all sorts of other activities it is engaged in. It does not have to write off that interest bill against the profits from the shares it buys; it can write it off against profits in every one of its other activities. Then, of course, the dividends from the shares it has bought are tax free in the hands of the company. So, in effect, there is double dipping. The company gets a deduction from the borrowings and it gets the dividends tax free. Contrast that with a company that decides to expand its productive capacity by buying a machine. What happens there? The interest on the money borrowed to buy the machine is tax deductible but the profits that that machine earns are taxable. So immediately the company that is trying to expand its productive resources is at a disadvantage compared to the company that expands through takeovers. This has been pointed out by me and others time and time again. The Government has refused to act. I would have thought that the problem should be plain to the Government; it is certainly plain to most Australians when they sit back and see the enormous profits that have been made by the Bond Corporation, Elders-IXL Ltd and the Holmes a Court companies, when they see the enormous profits that have been made purely in share trading, in speculating on the stock market. The tragedy of the matter is that if the stock market should collapse all that money would be wasted. At least if it were invested in machinery, in productive capacity, that machinery and productivity capacity would still exist if the stock market collapsed. So we are treading a fine line. We are running an economy that is headed for bankruptcy, without doubt, because we are continuing to borrow money. We are continuing to spend money we do not have, and this current Budget makes no attempt to change that direction. Unfortunately members of the Liberal Party are not shouting from the rooftops that there has to be a change of direction. They are simply saying we should let market forces run the economy. The Australian Labor Party says the same thing. It amazes me that some members of the Labor Party have not been able to see the great similarity between this market forces philosophy and the laissez-faire survival of the fittest philosophy that was so prevalent in the early part of the nineteenth century. It is an identical philosophy. It says, simply, that governments do not have to worry, the market can run the country and the government does not have to do anything about it. That is another way of saying we will let the survival of the fittest prevail. It took the French Revolution, the storming of the Bastille, to change that laissez-faire attitude of the nineteenth century. I do not know how we can change the philosophy that the Liberal and Labor parties are espousing today. It is a critical problem for this country. There has to emerge somewhere concern by the Australian people as to what is going on. They must demand a change of direction. An alternative approach to economic management in this country must be debated. I cannot understand why at least some branches around the country of the once great Labor Party somewhere are not coming out and saying: `Look, why don't we debate within the Labor Party itself an alternative approach?'. Why are members of the Labor Party sitting back asking what they can do, suggesting that this is the only approach they can take, that they have to let market forces run, that they have to borrow money overseas. We have to stop borrowing money overseas. We cannot do that overnight, but we must plan to start doing it. We have to do something to reduce the flow of imports by some means or other. We could impose a luxury tax. In fact, the Australian Democrats in their alternative Budget suggested just that. We could put a tax on luxury imports such as the orange juice being imported from Brazil while our own growers are letting their oranges drop to the ground because they cannot afford to pick them. If we put, say, a six per cent tax on about one-fifth of our imports, we would raise something like $1.5 billion, which would go a long way towards reducing the Government's deficit. Senator Walsh —It would be about half that. Senator SIDDONS —It is not half that. It is a very clear and simple sum, and I think if Senator Walsh bothered to look at our alternative Budget he would see how it has been worked out. So there are alternatives. They are not being debated in this place to any degree at all simply because the two major parties have an unholy alliance that says market forces have to prevail and no alternatives will be considered. We have to have a long term plan. We have to have co-operation. We have to build our manufacturing industries rapidly. We have to look upon the whole world as a potential market. We have to do something about the degree of foreign ownership of our industries so that we can have industries that are more export and research orientated. The longer we delay making a start on a new direction the greater will be the disaster facing this country. Debate (on motion by Senator Walsh) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(7.27) —I rise on the adjournment on a matter which is of concern to me and I am sure is of concern to many Australians. The situation is that we have a Treasurer who is neglecting the proper operation of his Department, who is ceasing to be responsible to this Parliament, who is ceasing to answer his correspondence, and who in many ways is spending his time on other pursuits. I do not know quite what those other pursuits are, but they might be winding clocks, filling out travelling allowance forms or renovating his terrace in Sydney. Whatever it is, it is quite clear that he is not attending to the proper business of this country. I draw attention to the fact that throughout the year Mr Keating has refused to answer questions from both the Opposition and the media on tax matters and matters relating to his portfolio. The Treasurer brushed aside Opposition questions in the other place and told members that they should put such questions on notice. However, Mr John Hodges, a Liberal member for Queensland, has had questions on notice unanswered by the Treasurer for over a year. In addition, the Treasurer has not even acknowledged, let alone answered, 11 letters I have written to him over a period of five months on behalf of constituents. The subjects on which I have written to him on behalf of constituents have included the introduction of a sales tax on flavoured milk and fruit juices. I have sent him letters on 18 July, 8 August, 8 September and 13 October. I also wrote to him on 10 July on the classification of an invalid spouse under the Income Tax Assessment Act. I wrote to him on 7 July, 29 July, 1 September and 17 October in regard to exemption from taxation for a sporting organisation, in this case a pony club. On 14 August and 23 September I wrote to the Treasurer in relation to the effect of the fringe benefits tax on a non-profit making educational institution. I also wrote to him on 2 October concerning the National Trust and its problems with the fringe benefits tax. The Treasurer has seen fit to acknowledge none of those letters, which, I emphasise, were written on behalf of constituents. He has not even tried to answer them. When we take into account that he has also had a policy of never replying to Senator Michael Tate in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills-he has not sent one letter in response to that Committee's concerns-we have to wonder what he regards as being the due operation of his portfolio. He is responsible to this Parliament yet he seems to regard it with a total arrogance. When members of the Parliament are performing their proper duties as members of parliament they cannot get correspondence answered by the Treasurer at all, they cannot get questions taken seriously in the Parliament and they have not had questions on notice answered for more than a year. Senator Lewis —Shameful. Senator NEWMAN —It is shameful. It is a shameful way of treating this Parliament. He is taking not only his travelling allowance but also his wages under false pretences. His lack of interest is extremely alarming. If he is not prepared to answer to the people of Australia for his taxation measures they have good reason to mistrust him and he should start looking for alternative employment. The Australian Constitution provides that Ministers should be responsible. If the Treasurer is not prepared to fulfil his constitutional duties he should go. Senator Watson —That will be after the next election. Senator NEWMAN —As Senator Watson has said, he will go after the next election. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.31 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Navigation Act-Marine Orders 1986- No. 13-Part 31 (Ship Surveys and Certification). No. 14-Part 52 (Sailing Ships). No. 15-Part 2 (Fees). Remuneration Tribunals Act-Determination 1986-No. 19-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-The Secretary to the Department of Territories (from 1 January 1987) and others. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Determination under the Health Authority Ordinance, dated 23 October 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1119) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: When will the reply to my question, which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 12 February 1986, be forthcoming. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Parliamentary Question No. 828 which appeared in Senate Hansard of 12 June 1986 (page 3954). (Question No. 1139) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 2 June 1986: Has the Minister's department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible made available any grants or funds to any trade union body or related organisation in the financial years 1983-84; 1984-85 and 1985-86; if so- (a) who received those funds; (b) for what purpose; (c) what amounts were involved; and (d) when were these funds granted or given. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment 1983-84 * (a) Queensland Trades and Labour Council (b) construction of the `Tree of Knowledge' monument at Barcaldine, Queensland (c) $18,400-funded under the program for the Commemoration of Historic Events and Famous Persons (d) March 1984 1984-85 Nil 1985-86 * (a) Australian Workers Union (b) mounting of three exhibitions (art and photographic exhibitions depicting the history of the Union and an exhibition of Union banners) celebrating the Union's Centenary (c) $10,000-funded under the program for the Commemoration of Historic Events and Famous Persons (d) April 1986 Statutory Authorities Australia Council 1983-84 * (a) Musicians Union of Western Australia (b) towards fees and costs of jazz co-ordinator for Western Australia, 1984 (c) $7,000 (d) August 1983 * (a) Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia (b) towards salary and activities of arts officer (c) $5,000 (d) August 1983 * (a) Combined Union Arts Committee (Victoria) (b) (i) towards costs of mural projects at Williamstown Naval Dockyard (ii) towards costs of Art and Working Life project (iii) towards costs of writing workshops at Williamstown Naval Dockyard (c) (i) $2,000 (ii) $3,000 (iii) $400 (d) (i) September 1983 (ii) November 1983 (iii) May 1984 * (a) Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation (Victoria) (b) (i) towards artists fees and costs of project on technological changes in the building industry (ii) towards salary and expenses of trainee community arts worker (c) (i) $12,840 (ii) $8,450 (d) (i) November 1983 (ii) May 1984 * (a) Australian Clerical Officers Association (Tasmanian Branch) (b) towards artists fees for production of illustrated history of local dispute (c) $2,000 (d) November 1983 * (a) Australian Council of Trade Unions (b) (i) towards salary of arts officer and program of arts activities for 1984 (ii) towards costs of craft residency (c) (i) $16,500 (ii) $10,000 (d) (i) November 1983 (ii) May 1984 * (a) Australian Insurance Employees Union (Victoria) (b) towards costs of printmaker-in-residence (c) $8,000 (d) November 1983 * (a) Builders Labourers Federation (Victoria) (b) towards costs of mural project (c) $12,840 (d) November 1983 * (a) Federated Clerks Union of Australia (Queensland Branch) (b) towards artists fees and costs of design and production of poster series (c) $5,000 (d) November 1983 * (a) Launceston Trades Hall (Tasmania) (b) towards mural costs (c) $5,303 (d) November 1983 * (a) United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia (UTLC-SA) (b) (i) towards costs of arts program (ii) arts program-audio visual graphic arts photography and mural projects (iii) commission to compose song for Centenary (1984) (iv) costs associated with thirteen concerts during UTLC-SA Centenary (1984) (v) towards costs of musicians-in-residence for sixteen weeks during Centenary 1984 (vi) assistance towards tour of Sidetrack Theatre to steel cities in South Australia under Touring and Access Scheme (vii) towards costs of arts programs (viii) salaries and costs for a touring music/theatre production on the history of the South Australian trade union (ix) towards costs of producing and touring community theatre play on history of working class organisations in South Australia (x) towards costs of trade union schools project (xi) towards costs of 1984 arts program (xi) towards costs of May Day cabaret (c) (i) $10,325 (ii) $4,300 (iii) $450 (iv) $5,050 (v) $3,600 (vi) $800 (vii) $10,000 (viii) $21,000 (ix) $21,000 (x) $17,774 (xi) $10,000 (xii) $1,114 (d) (i) November 1983 (ii)-(iii) February 1984 (iv)-(vi) March 1984 (vii)-(xii) May 1984 * (a) Victorian Trades Hall Council (b) (i) towards salary of arts officer and program of arts activities (ii) towards costs of artists-in-community (various projects) (iii) re-mixing of tapes of La Paratrougada for release as recording (iv) towards costs of residency-in-wood (c) (i) $18,000 (ii) $12,000 (iii) $700 (iv) $3,500 (grant paid over two years) (d) (i)-(ii) November 1983 (iii) January 1984 (iv) March 1984 * (a) Workers Cultural Action Committee (New South Wales) (b) (i) towards salary of arts officer (ii) towards costs of trade union arts program (c) (i) $9,000 (ii) $4,868 (d) (i)-(iii) November 1983 * (a) Australian Insurance Employees Union (Victoria) (b) towards costs and fees of artist-in-residence for poster production and design (c) $8,000 (d) January 1984 * (a) Amalgamated Metal Foundry and Shipwrights Union (Western Australia) (b) towards fees of regional music co-ordinator (c) $15,000 (d) March 1984 * (a) Artworkers Union (New South Wales) (b) towards publication costs of four issues of Artworkers News 1984-85 (c) $1,000 (d) May 1984 * (a) Federated Iron Workers Association of Australia (New South Wales) (b) towards fees and costs of graphic artist-in-residence (c) $3,000 (d) May 1984 * (a) Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia (Queensland) (b) towards fees and costs of muralist-in-residence (c) $9,300 (d) May 1984 * (a) Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union (Tasmania) (b) towards costs of residency-in-fibre (c) $2,000 (d) May 1984 * (a) Labor Council of New South Wales (b) (i) towards fees and costs of lyricist/musician-in-residence (ii) towards production costs of play about employee participation performed at work sites and schools (c) (i) $3,500 (ii) $9,697 (d) (i)-(ii) May 1984 * (a) South Coast Trades and Labour Council (Queensland) (b) towards costs of employing woodworker to work with local unions and community on design and construction of playground (c) $7,385 (grant paid over two years) (d) May 1984 * (a) Austral Bronze Combined Unions Works Committee (New South Wales) (b) $450 (c) towards costs of banner to highlight employment problems in the coin manufacturing industry (d) June 1984 * (a) New South Wales Teachers Federation (b) fees and expenses for an Aboriginal artist to design posters on Aboriginal education issues (c) $5,500 (d) June 1984 1984-85 * (a) Labor Council of New South Wales (b) (i) towards costs of mural in workers factory (ii) towards costs of songwriter-in-residence at Chullora Railway Workshops (iii) towards costs of songwriter-in-residence at Chullora Railway Workshops (c) (i) $3,820 (ii) $3,500 (iii) $3,550 (d) (i) August 1984 (ii) November 1984 (iii) May 1985 * (a) South Coast Trades and Labor Council (Queensland) (b) towards salary of part-time field officer (c) $11,000 (d) August 1984 * (a) Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia (b) (i) towards costs of community mural (ii) towards costs of Trades and Labor Council Writers Page (iii) Court Hotel and Fremantle wharves mural project (iv) towards costs of a workplace/community theatre project (v) towards fees and costs of community and workplace theatre (vi) towards costs of 1985 arts program (vii) towards costs of employing writer-in-residence with Seamans Union and the Maritime Workers Union in Western Australia (viii) towards costs of employing playwright on the Work-North and South by West project (c) (i) $10,400 (ii) $3,575 (iii) $1,164 (iv) $20,000 (v) $20,000 (vi) $4,000 (vii) $10,800 (viii) $14,588 (d) (i)-(ii) August 1984 (iii) September 1984 (iv) November 1984 (v)-(vii) December 1984 (viii) May 1985 * (a) United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia (b) (i) towards costs of arts program funds for second half of 1984 (ii) towards salary of arts officer for second year (iii) towards costs of Art and Working Life banner (iv) towards costs of 1985 arts program (v) towards costs of employing storyteller-in-community with trade union members (vi) towards artists stipends and materials for Health and Safety and Photowriting projects (c) (i) $9,000 (ii) $12,060 (iii) $20,000 (iv) $39,250 (v) $3,000 (vi) $11,800 (d) (i)-(iv) August 1984 (v) December 1984 (vi) January 1985 * (a) Musicians Union of Australia (Western Australia) (b) towards costs of activities of jazz co-ordinator for 1985 (c) $10,068 (d) September 1984 * (a) Workers Cultural Action Committee (New South Wales) (b) (i) towards salary of community arts officer for third year (ii) towards costs of series of plays with Freewheels Theatre-in-Education on history of the local labour movement (iii) towards salary of community arts officer for fourth year (iv) stipend for artist-in-residence (c) (i) $300 (ii) $7,166 (iii) $11,502 (iv) $6,373 (d) (i) October 1984 (ii) November 1984 (iii) December 1984 (iv) January 1985 * (a) Actors Equity of Australia (Victoria) (b) towards stipend of artist-in-residence and cost of materials for poster project (c) $11,000 (d) November 1984 * (a) Artworkers Union Queensland (b) towards costs associated with Conference held in 1984 (c) $210 (d) November 1984 * (a) Food Preservers Union of Australia (Victoria) (b) towards practical leadlight and ceramic classes for workers at Heinz (c) $8,272 (d) November 1984 * (a) Arts Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia (b) towards assistance to tour Pilbara region (c) $35,000 (d) December 1984 * (a) Australian Building Construction Employees & Builders Labourers Federation (Victoria) (b) towards fees and costs of muralist-in-residence extension (c) $10,000 (d) December 1984 * (a) Australian Council of Trade Unions (b) salary of arts officer (c) $13,650 (d) December 1984 * (a) Australian Public Service Association (Queensland) (b) towards fees and costs of printmaker-in-residence (c) $6,661 (d) December 1984 * (a) Labor Council of New South Wales (b) (i) towards fees of composer/musician-in-residence (ii) costs associated with taping live interviews with trade union leaders (c) (i) $3,500 (ii) $5,000 (d) (i)-(ii) December 1984 * (a) Trade Union Labor Day Celebration Committee (Victoria) (b) towards artworkers fees and costs of arts events on Labor Day (c) $30,000 (d) December 1984 * (a) Victorian Trades Hall Council (b) (i) towards costs of 1984 arts program (ii) towards costs of arts workshops (iii) towards costs of photographically documenting Art and Working Life project (iv) salary of arts officers program of arts activities (v) stipend for artist-in-residence (c) (i) $9,000 (ii) $14,750 (iii) $2,000 (iv) $13,580 (v) $14,750 (d) (i) November 1984 (ii)-(iv) December 1984 (v) January 1985 * (a) Artworkers Union (New South Wales) (b) (i) towards publication costs of booklets on artists rights (ii) towards publication of four issues of Artworkers News 1984-85 (c) (i) $1,800 (ii) $1,000 (d) (i) January 1985 (ii) May 1985 * (a) Australian Broadcasting Corporation Staff Association (Victoria) (b) (i) towards costs of employing composer-in-residence in 1985 (ii) towards costs of employing artist-in-residence (c) (i) $7,000 (ii) $9,000 (d) (i) January 1985 (ii) March 1985 * (a) Australian Telecommunications Employees Association (Queensland) (b) (i) towards costs and fees of artists-in-residence graphics project (ii) towards fees and costs of three artists-in-residence (c) (i) $4,500 (ii) $18,000 (d) (i) January 1985 (ii) March 1985 * (a) United Trades and Labour Council of South Australia (b) (i) arts program for 1985 (ii) towards artists' stipends and materials for Health and Safety and Photowriting projects (c) (i) $15,000 (ii) $11,800 (d) (i) December 1984 (ii) January 1985 * (a) Workers Cultural Action Committee (New South Wales) (b) towards stipend of artist-in-residence (c) $6,373 (d) January 1985 * (a) Australian Council of Trade Unions (Victoria) (b) towards costs of research project to compile a book of songs of working Australians (c) $6,000 (d) March 1985 * (a) Hospital Services/Workers Union of Western Australia (b) towards costs of musicians-in-residence (c) $10,053 (d) March 1985 * (a) South Coast Labor Council (New South Wales) (b) towards costs of employing musician-in-residence/songwriter-in-community in the Illawarra region (c) $11,980 (d) March 1985 * (a) Australian Metal Workers and Stevedores Union (Western Australia) (b) towards costs of employing a regional music co-ordinator (c) $646 (d) April 1985 * (a) Federated Engine Drivers and Firemens Association (Tasmania) (b) towards costs of producing video history of the Union (c) $3,000 (d) May 1985 * (a) Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union (Tasmania) (b) towards costs of an Art and Working Life textile residency (c) $11,576 (d) May 1985 * (a) Geelong Trades Hall (Victoria) (b) (i) towards costs of employing artist on community theatre project about working life of waterside workers, seamen and their families (ii) towards cost of play about waterside workers, seamen and their families (c) (i) $2,350 (ii) $12,800 (d) (i) May 1985 (ii) June 1985 * (a) Musicians Union of Australia (Western Australia) (b) towards costs of employing writer-in-residence to document working lives of musicians (c) $6,398 (d) May 1985 * (a) Trade Union Information Centre (Victoria) (b) towards artists' stipends and travel costs for Womens Program photographic project for 150th Celebration (c) $13,156 (d) May 1985 * (a) Trade Union Unemployment Centre (Victoria) (b) towards fees and costs of photographer-in-residence project (c) $500 (d) May 1985 * (a) Combined Entertainment Industry Unions (New South Wales) (b) towards costs of participation in ACTU Congress Arts Festival (c) $1,771 (d) June 1985 * (a) Workers Cultural Committee (National) (b) towards administration costs of Conference on Art and Working Life in Melbourne (c) $6,000 (d) June 1985 1985-86 * (a) Australia Asia Workers Links (b) costs covering exhibition of posters and photographs depicting the labour movement in South East Asian countries (c) $2,450 (d) August 1985 * (a) Australian Workers Union fees and costs of artist-in-residence (c) $7,000 (d) August 1985 * (a) Combined Unions Shop Committee (b) (i) artists fees to conduct design workshops (ii) fees and costs of muralist (c) (i) $2,000 (ii) $3,900 (d) (i) August 1985 (ii) November 1985 * (a) Gippsland Trades and Labour Council (b) salary of trade union arts officer for first year (c) $11,000 (d) August 1985 * (a) Musicians Union of Australia (Western Australia) (b) fees and costs of writer and photographer-in-residence (c) $11,200 (d) August 1985 * (a) Queensland Teachers Union (b) (i) artists fees and costs associated with writer and photographer-in-residence (ii) fees and costs of writer-in-residence (c) (i) $8,989 (ii) $4,960 (d) (i)-(ii) August 1985 * (a) Railway Unions Cultural Exhibition Committee (b) costs of exhibition of history of artwork of railway workers and their unions (c) $22,000 (d) August 1985 * (a) South Coast Trades and Labour Council (Queensland) (b) (i) fees and costs of artist-in-residence (ii) salary of trade union arts officer for second year (c) (i) $10,000 (ii) $12,000 (d) (i)-(ii) August 1985 * (a) Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia (b) (i) salary of trainee arts officer (ii) artists fees and costs for trade union banner workshops (iii) annual arts program (iv) fees and costs of artist-in-community (v) costs of workshops in oral history for workers groups in Pilbara iron ore industry (c) (i) $16,500 (ii) $3,850 (iii) $6,000 (iv) $9,250 (v) $7,605 (d) (i)-(ii) August 1985 (iii) November 1985 (iv) December 1985 (v) 4 April 1986 * (a) United Trades and Labour Council of South Australia (b) (i) fees and costs of writer-in-residence (ii) salary of arts officer for third year (iii) annual program of arts activities (iv) artists fees and costs for banner making project (c) (i) $3,000 (ii) $9,850 (iii) $12,000 (iv) $9,725 (d) (i) August 1985 (ii)-(iii) November 1985 (iv) February 1986 * (a) Food Preservers Union of Australia (b) costs of practical leadlight and ceramics classes for workers at Heinz and Rosella (c) $3,048 (d) September 1985 * (a) Australian Clerical Officers Association (b) (i) artists fees and costs for producing a performance piece covering work-related issues (ii) fees of script consultant for the play `Insecurity' (c) (i) $5,000 (ii) $1,000 (d) (i) November 1985 (ii) April 1986 * (a) Australian Council of Trade Unions (b) (i) salary of arts officer-January-June 1986 (ii) towards arts activities and programs (c) (i) $11,350 (ii) $50,000 (d) (i) November 1985 (ii) February 1986 * (a) Federated Engine Drivers and Firemens Association (b) (i) artists fees and costs for video recording of oral history (ii) fees and costs of writer-in-residence (c) (i) $7,200 (ii) $3,900 (d) (i) November 1985 (ii) May 1986 * (a) Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union (b) artists fees and costs for mural (c) $2,500 (d) November 1985 * (a) Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia (b) (i) fees and costs of muralist-in-residence (ii) fees and costs of muralists (c) (i) $7,500 (ii) $7,500 (d) (i) November 1985 (ii) December 1985 * (a) Municipal Officers Association of Australia (Western Australia) (b) fees and costs for graphic artist-in-residence (c) $7,500 (d) November 1985 * (a) Operative Painters/Decorators Union (b) fees and costs of trade union artworker (c) $9,500 (d) November 1985 * (a) Royal Nursing Federation (b) fees and costs of muralist (c) $3,510 (d) November 1985 * (a) Victorian Trades Hall Council (b) (i) fees and costs of artists-in-residence at Councils arts workshops (ii) fees and costs of artists-in-residence (iii) artists fees and salaries of director, designer and writer for Labor Day performance (iv) fees and costs of artists-in-community at Councils arts workshops during 1986 (v) fees and costs of graphic designer-in-residence (c) (i) $9,000 (ii) $5,000 (iii) $15,000 (iv) $9,000 (v) $8,000 (d) (i)-(iii) November 1985 (iv) December 1985 (v) April 1986 * (a) Workers Cultural Action Committee (b) (i) annual program of arts activities (ii) presentation of original play for children to celebrate May Day 1986 (c) (i) $12,000 (ii) $4,508 (d) (i)-(ii) November 1985 * (a) Queensland Professional Officers Association (b) fees and costs for artist-in-community (c) $6,200 (d) December 1985 * (a) Trade Union Community Research Centre (b) fees and costs for research/documentation of trade union banners (c) $11,000 (d) December 1985 * (a) Victorian Trade Union Day Celebration Committee (b) costs of innovative `Work Song Project' for Victorian Trade Union Labor Day celebration (c) $10,000 (d) January 1986 * (a) Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union (Northern Territory) (b) artists fees and costs for banner making project (c) $4,000 (d) March 1986 * (a) Labor Council of New South Wales (b) fees and costs of musician-in-residence (c) $10,000 (d) March 1986 * (a) Amalgamated Metal Workers Union (b) (i) designers fees to research design features of industrial handtools (ii) artists fees and costs for banner making project (iii) artists fees and costs for banner making project (c) (i) $10,000 (ii) $4,542 (iii) $4,542 (d) (i) April 1986 (ii)-(iii) May 1986 * (a) Federated Miscellaneous Workers Trade Union (Tasmania) (b) fees and costs of artists-in-residence (c) $13,576 (d) April 1986 * (a) Queensland Nurses Union (b) fees and costs of writer-in-residence (c) $4,207 (d) April 1986 * (a) Australian Timberworkers Union (Victoria) (b) fees and costs of artist-in-residence (c) $15,474 (d) May 1986 Australian Film Commission 1983-84 * (a) Actors Equity (b) travel grant to attend and report on Performers Protection Conference (c) $1,500 (d) March 1984 * (a) Victorian Trades Hall Council (Film/Video Unit) (b) Women's Film Fund production investment in 30 minute video documentary on the broad theme of the role of women within the Australian trade union movement (c) $9,700 (d) April 1984 1984-85 Nil 1985-86 * (a) Actors Equity (b) (i) report on Federation of International Actors meeting concerning policies in other countries for the employment of foreign actors in co-productions (ii) discussions with CBS and American networks concerning industrial implications of offshore productions (c) (i) $1,000 (ii) $3,000 (d) (i) July 1985 (ii) June 1986 National Library of Australia 1983-84 Nil 1984-85 * (a) Public Service Association of South Australia Inc. (b) salary and allowances for K. Purse to undertake liaison activities between the Library, concerned unions, the Trades and Labour Council of the ACT and the National Capital Development Commission during the removal of asbestos from the Library building (c) $18,608 (d) salary paid fortnightly and allowances paid weekly from October 1984 to June 1985 * (a) Public Service Association Nominees Inc. South Australia (b) long service leave and superannuation for K. Purse engaged as liaison officer during the removal of asbestos from the Library buildings (c) $4,038 (d) paid fortnightly from October 1984 to June 1985 1985-86 * (a) Public Service Association of South Australia Inc. (b) salary and allowances for K. Purse to undertake liaison activities between the Library, concerned unions, Trades and Labour Council of the ACT and the National Capital Development Commission during removal of asbestos from Library building (c) $1,876 (d) salary paid fortnightly and allowances paid weekly from July 1985 to August 1985 * (a) Public Service Association Nominees Inc. South Australia (b) long service leave and superannuation for K. Purse engaged as liaison officer during the removal of asbestos from the Library buildings (c) $535 (d) paid fortnightly from July 1985 to August 1985 (Question No. 1149) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) What action has the Government taken in respect to recommendation Number 1 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking that the recommendations of the Williams Commission in favour of co-operating to pool resources and ending the fragmented approach of law enforcement to organised crime, particularly drug trafficking, should be implemented. (2) What negotiations has the Commonwealth Government had with the various State Governments concerning the implementation of a uniform drug trafficking act. (3) When will a uniform drug trafficking act be enacted throughout Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government is satisfied that the degree of co-operation between law enforcement agencies has greatly improved since the recommendations were made. (2) In the light of action already taken by jurisdictions to amend their drug legislation, the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy resolved at its meeting in May 1986 that the Secretariat to the Standing Committee of Officials identify those key areas of drug control legislation in which a uniform approach is most desirable and initiate discussions with all jurisdictions on the achievement of a uniform approach in those areas. This is being pursued. (Question No. 1170) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Has the Government raised the need for State action through the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy following its response to recommendation 68 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking concerning uniform Commonwealth and State laws for the forfeiture of property and the payment of financial penalties by drug offenders where the Government stated: ``existing Commonwealth legislation substantially provides for the penalties and remedies proposed and the Government will raise the need for State action through the Ministerial Committee on Drug Strategy''; if not, why not. (2) When will it be raised. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Special Premiers' Conference on Drugs (held in Canberra on 2 April 1985) agreed in principle that legislation be introduced in each jurisdiction to enable for forfeiture and confiscation of assets of convicted drug dealers and noted that the question would be further considered by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG). In October 1985 at the request of SCAG, the Commonwealth prepared and circulated to the States a preliminary draft model Bill providing for the imposition of a pecuniary penalty (representing the benefits an offender has derived from serious criminal conduct) as well as the forfeiture of property used in or obtained as a result of the commission of an offence. In November 1985 New South Wales enacted legislation along the lines of the Commonwealth Model Bill. South Australia has also enacted legislation and other States have indicated that they are about to follow. The States have continued to be interested in the development of the model legislation as it was agreed that there should be provisions for the reciprocal enforcement of forfeiture and pre-trial restraining orders in other jurisdictions. Without such provisions State legislation would be ineffective where an offender's forfeitable assets are located in another jurisdiction. A reciprocal enforcement scheme was finally agreed to by SCAG on 25 September 1986. On 26 September 1986 the Commonwealth Government announced that it would be introducing comprehensive legislation to attack the proceeds of crime. This legislation will provide for tougher forfeiture provisions than were contemplated in other jurisdictions where persons had been convicted of drug trafficking, organised fraud and money laundering. In these cases all the offender's assets will be liable to automatic forfeiture at the expiration of 6 months after conviction, subject to the offender establishing that they were not acquired as a result of criminal activity. (2) The matter is currently being monitored by the Ministerial Council of Drug Strategy who have responsibility for the follow-up action on the matters agreed to at the Special Premiers' Conference on Drugs, and, as has been indicated, the matter has been discussed in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. (Question No. 1178) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Has the legislation been drafted following the Government's response to recommendation 10 014 of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union concerning the requirement that the Commonwealth and State Governments enact legislation similar to the USA's Racketeer and Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute providing for uniform legislation for the forfeiture of assets, and when will it be introduced into Federal and State Parliaments. (2) Why has there been such delay in carrying out this recommendation. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) On 26 September 1986 the Government announced that it will be introducing a comprehensive legislative package to attack the proceeds of crime. The legislation approved by the Government would: * permit, after conviction, the forfeiture of property used in, or obtained as a result of the commission of an indictable offence against the law of the Commonwealth; * require for more serious offences the automatic forfeiture of the offenders assets 6 months after conviction (subject to the offender establishing that they were legitimately acquired); * permit, prior to conviction the tracing and freezing of property that may be subject to forfeiture; * create new offences of ``money laundering'' (the process by which profits of crimes are disguised in order to make them appear legitimate); * require keeping of certain financial records by financial institutions and permit subject to safeguards, access to such records; and * provide for proper identification of all persons and corporations opening bank accounts. The Government also indicated that it was favourably disposed to the introduction of legislation requiring financial institutions to report currency transactions above a specified amount. This may be required for the effective enforcement of these new measures. The Government has agreed to examine the practicalities of introducing such a scheme. The Attorney-General, the Special Minister of State and the Treasurer, will be reporting back to the Government on this matter by November 1986-after further consultation, including talks with financial institutions. It should be noted that most States and the Commonwealth already have some form of forfeiture legislation in relation to assets derived from the commission of serious drug offences. New South Wales and South Australia have also recently enacted legislation providing for the forfeiture of assets derived from criminal conduct in general. (2) This matter has been the subject of consideration not only by the Commonwealth Government but also by the Australian Police Ministers Council and subsequently the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG). As SCAG agreed in principle that uniform legislation on this subject should be introduced in each jurisdiction the proposals have required full consultation with the States and the Northern Territory. The new Commonwealth legislation will go much further than the State legislation and the complex nature of the issues raised by the proposal required lengthy and detailed consideration (including consideration of the US Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organisations Statute, as well as similar legislation in other countries). (Question No. 1241) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 June 1986: (1) What counter measures are being considered, in addition to improved intelligence gathering, in view of the Special Minister of State's recent statement on the cocaine problem, and his recognition that such a problem does exist. (2) What firm proposals are being considered on ``the development of intelligence on overseas aspects'', ``expansion of liaison officer positions'', and ``increased participation in conferences, training programs and liaison visits''. (3) What additional staff and other resources will be provided to the Australian Federal Police so that the maximum value can be gained from the anticipated improvement in intelligence gathering, given the Minister's statement and the already well documented resource deficiencies in the Australian Federal Police. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In view of the current situation regarding cocaine abuse in Australia, emphasis is being placed on strengthening intelligence gathering arrangements, including by the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs Service. In addition both the Australian Police Ministers Council and the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy are examining the problem from a national perspective, the latter covering both demand and supply aspects. (2) On 3 June 1986 I advised the House of Representatives that an additional Australian Federal Police liaison officer was being stationed in Honolulu which is viewed as a potential transhipment point for cocaine en route to Australia. In addition to this initiative, I am advised that a micro-computer based network is being established between Customs administrations within the Pacific Base Region to identify and monitor the movement of small craft, in particular, yachts and light aircraft. Two senior officers (from the Federal Police and Customs Service respectively) also recently attended the Inter-regional Heads of Narcotic Law Enforcement Agencies meeting in Vienna. I understand that the meeting was successful in furthering at the international level, co-operation between law enforcement agencies. (3) In October 1985 I directed (pursuant to Section 13(2) of the AFP Act) that investigation of drug offences is to be the first priority for the AFP nationally. I am advised that on the basis of current planning by the AFP and with increased resources being made available by the Government, AFP police staff directly devoted to drugs investigations will have increased by around 70 per cent by 1987/88 with a major increase in supporting intelligence staff. The Federal Government is also providing an additional $5.5m over two years to the Australian Customs Service as part of its law enforcement contribution to the national campaign against drug abuse. (Question No. 1258) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Would the transition period to self-government of some African nations have improved if adequate education of their future leaders had taken place before the change to self-government. (2) Is it not advisable to educate black South Africans, to prepare them for fair representation, given the eventual fall of apartheid in South Africa. (3) Will the Government make available scholarships to enable South African students to study in the vocational areas which their country will need in the future. (4) Would these students then be qualified to work in other African countries and gain the experience they will need to apply in their own country one day, so that this training is not wasted. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) This is a hypothetical question. I am not in a position to speculate on the adequacy of the education received by past or present African leaders nor on the effect of that education on the transition period to self-government. (2) Agree. (3) The Government currently provides educational assistance to black South Africans and Namibians through programs administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. The Australian Embassy in Pretoria administers scholarships for black South Africans to study in their own country. Scholarships are also available for Namibian and black South African refugees to study in Australia and non government organisations are funded by ADAB to arrange specialised training, work experience programs and trade union training in Australia. The Budget provides for a new $5m assistance program for Southern Africa over a five year period to 1990. Further details would be available from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. (4) Australian vocational qualifications are of a high standard and are recognised and respected in countries where they are known. Where they are not known, the skills demonstrated by those holding them should commend them. (Question No. 1263) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Have some graziers in Queensland who have been issued with pest destruction permits been using unacceptable and unorthodox methods in the killing of kangaroos, such as leaving gunshot wounded kangaroos to die a slow death, together with allegations of slow acting poisons being introduced to water holes and along boundary fences endangering all animal and bird life in the area. (2) Will the Minister undertake an investigation of these serious allegations with a view to ensuring that such practices are discounted. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am not aware of any evidence confirming that such practices are being carried out in Queensland. The Director of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service (QNPWS) Dr G. Saunders, has commented in relation to this question that his Service does all it can to ensure that kangaroos are taken by acceptable methods only. For instance I understand that a planned ``kangaroo drive'' near Goondiwindi was prevented recently by Queensland police. (2) While responsibility for the methods used to kill kangaroos in Queensland rests with the QNPWS which can specify the legal manner by which kangaroos may be destroyed and the Commonwealth has no power to intervene directly in such matters, the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers, which is composed of all Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers responsible for wildlife, including the Queensland Minister, endorsed in May 1985 a Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos. This Code specifies the requirements for humane shooting of kangaroos. (Question No. 1274) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since March 1983. (2) What were the date and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: On 29 September 1986 a new Senior Executive Service Structure was introduced in the Department, involving an overall reduction of two Senior Executive Service positions at an overall saving in the Senior Executive Service salaries of $83,437 per annum. Included in the restructure was the replacement of three positions by higher level positions as follows: 2 SES Level 3 ($58,398) positions replaced by 2 SES Level 4 ($63,164) positions 1 SES Level 1 ($48,867) position replaced by 1 SES Level 2 ($53,632) position There have been no other Senior Executive Service reclassifications made since 5 March 1983. (Question No. 1295) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: 1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since March 5, 1983. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Nil. (2) Not applicable. (Question No. 1410) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) Is the intent of Section 24 (1) (a) (b) (c) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act to lay down the qualifications for TPI pensions. (2) Is Section 24 (2) (b) intended to apply beneficially to veterans under the age of 65 years. (3) Is the attitude taken by the Commission Review Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that if a veteran qualifies under Section 24 (2) (b) he must also qualify under Section 24 (1) (a) (b) (c) and Section 24 (2) (i) (ii) the correct interpretation; if so, does this negate entirely the beneficial effect of Section 24 (2) (b). (4) If the answer to (3) and (4) is ``Yes'' will the Government be amending the Veterans' Entitlements Act to remedy this. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) In part, yes. Sub-section 24 (3) provides for the grant of special (T & PI) rate of pension where a Veteran has been blinded in both eyes as a result of war-caused injury or disease. (2) Yes. (3) Decisions of the Repatriation Commission, the Veterans' Review Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal indicate that a Veteran must meet the criteria set out in paragraph 24 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 in order to qualify for pension at the special (T & PI) rate. Where a Veteran who is under 65 years of age satisfies the test set out in paragraph 24 (2) (b), he is regarded as having met that part of the T & PI criteria which is provided for by paragraph 24 (1) (c). (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 1412) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) On what date was the disease ``potato cyst nematode'' first identified in Western Australia (WA). (2) What was the origin of the seed. (3) What quarantine arrangements will be undertaken to minimise the potential spread. (4) What restrictions to the movement of tubers within WA and interstate have been made. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Potato cyst nematode was positively identified in Western Australia on 30 September, 1986. (2) The seed was from a supplier in the Albany area approved by the Department of Agriculture. There is no reason to believe that the pest was introduced into the infested areas on seed. (3) Immediate quarantine action by Western Australia following the discovery of PCN involved the imposition of restrictions on the movement of produce and machinery from the affected areas. Following that, the Department of Agriculture initiated intensive surveys of all potato growing areas in the State. These are continuing. Further action is under consideration by the Standing Committee on Agriculture's Consultative Committee on Insect Pests, Weeds and Plant Diseases which met in a telephone hook-up on 30 September and again on 14 October. (4) Western Australia has restricted the movement of potatoes from the affected areas so that all produce must be sent for processing. All potatoes grown in the metropolitan areas not affected by the pest are to be washed and limited in distribution to areas where potatoes are not grown. Other States, with the exception of Tasmania have or are preparing proclamations/orders to ban the import of potatoes from Western Australia. Senator Button —On 8 May 1986 (Hansard, page 2626) Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked me, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, a question without notice on figures on employment growth during the Government's first three years in office and the basis of those figures in terms of full and part-time employment. The honourable senator also sought an explanation of the apparent disparity between the number of persons receiving unemployment benefit and the number seeking employment. I undertook to direct the question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations who has provided the following response: Between April 1983 and April 1986 employment (seasonally adjusted) in Australia increased by 669,400 according to the Labour Force Survey. This figure comprises net growth of 460,600 in full-time employment and 208,800 in part-time employment. Some 69 percent of the employment growth was therefore full-time. The latest figures available on unemployment benefit (UB) recipients are for the week ending 29 August 1986 when there were 573,735 persons receiving UB. This compared with 595,600 persons unemployed and actively seeking employment as estimated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), for the month of August 1986. Neither of these figures are seasonally adjusted. There are significant and fundamental differences between figures on unemployment, which are derived by the ABS from a population survey, and those on UB which are an administrative series. For example, persons in part-time or casual employment may retain eligibility for some UB payment under current testing provisions. Such persons would be classified by the ABS as employed, provided they worked one hour or more in the survey week. On the other hand, some unemployed persons are ineligible for UB for such reasons as spouse income, age or attendance at full-time education. Senator Grimes —On 22 August 1986 (Hansard, page 352), Senator Crowley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice relating to changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: Pamphlets explaining the new scheme will be available from pharmacies from late October. The honourable senator asked whether the arrangements which will apply to oral contraceptives from 1 November 1986 might apply to other drugs as well. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) regularly reviews the listing of drugs as pharmaceutical benefits, including the maximum quantities and repeats which apply. Whereas it has been usual to list drugs used to treat chronic conditions to enable one month's supply per prescription plus two repeats, for chronic conditions which do not require frequent clinical review the PBAC often now recommends further repeats to enable up to six months' supply to be obtained between visits for clinical reassessment. For example, most items for use in the treatment of hypertension and arrhythmias now have five repeats available as do many of the anti-asthmatic drugs listed. Other than this, there is no proposal at present for a general increase in benefit availability. (Question No. 1279) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since March 5 1983. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Since 5 March 1983 five Senior Executive Service positions in the Department of Trade have been reclassified. (2) These reclassifications were: (a) Position No. 582, Senior Executive Service Level 1 (Salary $48,867 per annum) to Senior Executive Service Level 2 ($53,632) with effect from 10 July 1986. There was no net cost to the Portfolio as the reclassification was effected to facilitate the exchange of staff members between the Department and the Australian Trade Commission. (b) Positions No. 87,1260 and 1 (N.S.W.), Senior Executive Service Levels 1 ($43,974) to Senior Executive Service Levels 2 ($48,262) with effect from 14 March 1985. (c) Position No. 596 Senior Executive Service Level 2 ($48,262) to Senior Executive Service Level 1 ($43,974) with effect from 14 March 1985. (Question No. 1358) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: Has the Minister's Department, any Statutory Body or Authority under the control of the Minister granted funds to the Tasmanian Trade Union Community Research Centre since 5 March 1983; if so- (a) under what schemes/programs were these grants given; (b) what was the amount of money involved for these grants; (c) who administered these grants; (d) what were the purposes of the schemes/programs; and (e) why were these grants necessary. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No funding has been provided to the Tasmanian Trade Union Community Research Centre under any program administered by my Department or by Statutory Bodies or Authorities under my control as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. (Question No. 1368) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What are the function or functions of the Statutory Authorities titled- (a) Controller of Fuels; (b) Collector of Maintenance; (c) Public Baths Inspectors; and (d) Trespassing Inspectors (2) How many people are currently employed by each Authority on a part-time or a full-time basis. (3) How many of these people are employed in an honorary capacity. (4) To what extent is each Authority subsidised by the private sector, and what has been the cost to the Australian Government for maintaining the Authorities for each year of their existence. (5) Is it a fact that each authority is not required to produce an annual report; if so, why not. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) Controller of Fuels (1) The Controller of Fuels is not a Statutory Authority but an officer of the Territories Department appointed and exercising the functions of a statutory office holder under the Fuels Control Ordinance 1979 of the ACT. The Controller of Fuels controls the use of fuel in the ACT in times of fuel shortage. (2) Nil. Departmental Officers are used to carry out the directions of the Controller of Fuels. (3) Nil. (4) Nil. (5) The Controller of Fuels is not a Statutory Authority. (b) Collector of Maintenance (1) The Collector of Maintenance is not a statutory authority but an officer of the Attorney-General's Department appointed and exercising the functions of a statutory office holder under the Maintenance Ordinance of the ACT. The Collector of Maintenance collects fees and other payments; on request, initiates local and interstate enforcement proceedings for non-compliance with maintenance orders; on request, receives and disburses maintenance payments; and on request, arranges for the service and execution of process under the Maintenance Ordinance of the ACT and the Family Law Act. These payments are generally for the maintenance of the children. (2) Three. (3) None. (4) There is no private sector subsidy; yearly cost (including 85% overhead costs) is estimated at $122,000. (5) The Collector of Maintenance is not a statutory authority. However details of the Collector of Maintenance are included in the annual report for the Attorney-General's Department under Magistrates Courts Branch activities. (c) Public Baths Inspectors and (d) Trespassing Inspectors. (1) There is no Statutory Authority established under the ACT legislation which is titled ``Public Baths Inspectors'' or ``Trespassing Inspectors''. However, section 7 (1) of the Public Baths and Public Bathing Ordinance 1956 (``the Public Baths Ordinance'') provides that the Minister (for Territories) may appoint such persons as he thinks fit for the purposes of the Ordinance. Sections 10, 11, 16, 20, 22, 33 and 35 of the Public Baths Ordinance confer various powers and functions on Public Baths Inspectors. Sections 3a of the Trespass on Commonwealth Lands Ordinance 1932 is in terms similar to section 7 (1) of the Public Baths Ordinance. Various powers and functions are conferred on persons who are appointed as inspectors under the Trespass Ordinance by sections 3C, 8, 8A and 9 of that Ordinance. (2) The duties of Public Baths Inspectors and Inspectors under the Trespass Ordinance are carried out by officers of the ACT Health Authority and Department of Territories respectively in the course of other duties. (3) Nil. (4) Nil. (5) The Public Baths and Trespassing Inspectors are not Statutory Authorities. (Question No. 1379) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: (1) What was the nature of the ``Nuclear Policy Mission'' on which SES officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs visited Japan, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany. (2) What were the (a) names; (b) qualifications; and (c) employment areas within the Department of the officers involved. (3) Have there been any other overseas trips by officers of the Department in connection with this matter; if so, in each case (a) when; (b) by whom; and (c) to which countries. (4) What were the individuals, Government and non-Government agencies, authorities or institutions visited by officers of the Department in connection with this matter in each case. (5) What was the nature of the ``Policy Planning Talks'' in Japan, Hong Kong and Indonesia to which the Department sent 3 officers. (6) What were the (a) names; (b) qualifications; and (c) employment areas within the Department of the officers involved. (7) What was the purpose of the ``Chemical Weapons Convention'' to which an SES officer was sent. (8) What was the name, qualifications and employment area within the Department of the officer concerned. (9) Were nations other than Australia and the USA involved; if so, which nations. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The nuclear policy mission conducted in February-March 1985 comprised two SES officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and one officer from the Department of Trade. The two Foreign Affairs officers visited Japan, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Ireland and the Federal Republic of Germany. One officer also visited France, Italy and Greece. The mission was authorised at this time so as to sensitise member States of the European Community as well as the European Commission to Australian interests in issues involving the NPT and the forthcoming third NPT Review Conference, and in their decision-making relating to the proposed enlargement of the European Community to include Spain (a non-NPT member) and Portugal (a NPT member). The timing of the Mission was determined by the timing of EC enlargement set for 1 January 1986 and of the third NPT Review Conference (27 August-21 September 1985). Inclusion of Tokyo on the itinerary facilitated consultations on NPT-related matters with the Japanese. It also provided an opportunity for bilateral consultations under the Australia/Japan safeguards agreement. In the case of the visits to the Netherlands and Italy, the mission was a response to outstanding requests for consultations among officials on issues concerning the NPT. (2) (a) and (c) Mr D. A. Townsend, the then Assistant Secretary Nuclear Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs. Mr G. A. Brennan, Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs. (b) Mr Townsend has been a Foreign Affairs officer since 1964 and has served in a number of posts. At the time of the nuclear policy mission he had been in charge of branches dealing with nuclear policy and safeguards matters for approximately six years. Mr Brennan has been the Department's Legal Adviser since 1980. He was Assistant Legal Adviser from 1978 to 1980. He has since 1978 been associated with the negotiation and implementation of Australia's nuclear safeguards agreements and also with the provision of legal advice in respect of Australia's non-proliferation policies and associated international legal obligations. (3) There have been no other visits abroad by officers of the Department with the specific purpose of pursuing the matters referred to under (1) above. Australian delegations did participate in the three meetings of the Preparatory Committee for the Third NPT Review Conference and at the Conference itself. I presented a full report on the Conference to the Parliament last year. I would point out also that for many years successive Australian Governments have pursued both bilaterally and multilaterally Australia's interest in preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. This Government has done so with particular vigour. (4) During the nuclear policy mission referred to in the question Departmental officers met relevant officials of the organisations set out below. I do not consider it appropriate to provide the names of individuals concerned in foreign Government Ministries or authorities. Japan-Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Science and Technology Agency, Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation. Denmark-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Danish Commission on Security and Disarmament Affairs. Belgium-Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General of Energy, Euratom Safeguards Directorate, Euratom Supply Agency. Luxembourg-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Public Health. Netherlands-Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ireland-Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Federal Republic of Germany-Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Research and Technology. France-Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Italy-Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Political Committee working groups on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation (during Italian Presidency of the EC), Italian Commission for Nuclear and Alternative Energy Sources. Greece-Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (5) and (6) Three officers travelled from Australia to Japan to take part in the 9th Meeting of Japan-Australia Policy Planning talks, held on 28 and 29 March 1985 in Tokyo. The officers were: Mr D. M. Sadleir, the then First Assistant Secretary, Executive, Policy Planning and Defence Division, Department of Foreign Affairs (an SES officer with extensive service in Canberra and overseas, including Japan, the United States and the Soviet Union, and whose responsibilities in his position as Division Head included supervision of the Policy Planning Unit). Mr R. E. Little, the then Head of the Policy Planning Unit, Department of Foreign Affairs (a Foreign Affairs Officer Class 4, equivalent to a CAC 11. Mr Little is a senior officer with previous posting experience in Japan, Laos, Bangladesh, Ireland, China and Jamaica.) Dr R. W. Rigby, then a staff member of the Policy Planning Unit, Department of Foreign Affairs (a Foreign Affairs Officer Class 2, equivalent to a CAC 7. Dr Rigby previously served in Japan and China). Both Mr Little and Dr Rigby are Japanese speakers. Also taking part in the talks in Tokyo were the then Australian Ambassador to Japan, Sir Neil Currie; the Minister at the Australian Embassy, Mr C. R. Jones; and the Counsellor at the Australian Embassy, Mr C. G. S. Willis. The Japanese delegation at the talks was led by the Director-General of the Information Analysis, Research and Planning Bureau in the Japanese Ministry of Fo-reign Affairs. Also taking part on the Japanese side were staff members of this Bureau and of other Bureaux in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The purpose of these talks, the ninth in a series, was to have a wide-ranging exchange of views with senior Japanese officials on political and economic questions of common interest. The main topics addressed at the talks included East-West relations, the South Pacific, China, South-East Asia, Pacific economic cooperation, the Bonn Economic Summit, the Indian Ocean, and the global multilateral system. The talks contributed usefully to our understanding of Japanese views on these matters. Meetings also were held with the National Institute for Research Advancement; the Nomura Research Institute; and the Japanese Institute of International Affairs. Mr Sadleir travelled directly between Australia and Japan, while Mr Little and Dr Rigby on the return journey visited Jakarta for two days of talks with Indonesian counterparts, from 31 March to 2 April. They saw the Director-General of the Policy Research and Development Agency in the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They also saw a senior member of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. Issues addressed in these discussions included the South Pacific, China and South East Asia, developments in Indonesia and the region, Pacific economic cooperation, and the global multilateral system. Hong Kong was a transit stop and no policy planning talks were held there. (7) Dr Peter Dunn of the Defence Department's Materials Research Laboratories, visited the United States in the latter half of February 1985 for bilateral discussions with United States officials on issues concerned with the verification of compliance with a chemical weapons convention (i.e., the convention outlawing chemical weapons currently under negotiation in the Conference on Disarmament), with particular focus on the issues concerned with verifying allegations of use of chemical weapons. (8) Dr Peter Dunn, Superintendent, Organic Chemistry Division, Materials Research Laboratories (MRL), Maribyrnong. He has been involved in defence science research continuously since joining MRL (then the Defence Standards Laboratories) in 1951. (9) No. (Question No. 1391) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 24 September 1986: (1) Who now conducts business upon the premises known as ``Royal Aero Club of New South Wales'' at Bankstown Airport. (2) By whom is authority granted to conduct that business. (3) What are the terms of that authority. (4) What steps are taken to ensure compliance with those terms. (5) What payments are made to the Crown pursuant to the conduct of that business. (6) How are the profits of that business distributed. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Royal Aero Club of New South Wales, a company limited by guarantee incorporated under the laws of the State of New South Wales, which is currently in receivership. Messrs B. R. Silvia and G. T. Thomas were appointed Joint Receivers on 16 January 1985. (2) Authority to conduct a business is granted pursuant to the provisions of the Airport (Business Concessions) Act 1959 by the Minister of State for Aviation or his authorised delegate. In this instance the delegate being the Assistant Regional Director, (Airports) New South Wales Region of the Department of Aviation (Instrument of Delegation M4/85 refers). (3) Terms of the Authority are in accordance with the Department of Aviation policy in respect of club facilities operating on Commonwealth owned airports. (4) (i) Monitor of performance and visitations to the premises by appropriate departmental personnel: Commercial, Buildings and Health Officers as well as Cost Investigators. (ii) `Notices' to comply in instances of non-observance or non-performance by the tenant/concessionaire. (iii) Appropriate remedy clauses are included in all Lease and Authority Agreements which can be exercised in instances of fundamental breaches to the Agreement. (5) Payments consist of an authority fee equivalent to 10% of total liquor purchases which reflects fee levied on similar types of operations under the New South Wales Liquor Act 1912 plus Leasehold Rentals which are: Hangars 15 and 410-$30,144.00 per annum Clubhouse-$1,232.04 per annum. (6) Royal Aero Club of New South Wales is currently in receivership and any profits or surplus cash flow would be directed to payment of debts of secured creditors. However, historically profits have been directed by the Royal Aero Club into procurement of aeroplanes, improvements to premises and workshop equipment and services to its members. (Question No. 1408) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) What was the cost of establishing the lobbyist registration scheme. (2) What is the annual operating cost of the scheme. (3) How many staff are required to administer the scheme. (4) How many lobbyists have registered under the scheme. (5) How many lobbyists have been refused registration under the scheme. (6) How many lobbyists are operating outside the scheme. (7) Who are the lobbyists who are, who have been, or who have applied for, registration under the lobbyist registration scheme. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (3) The scheme for the registration of lobbyists is administered as part of the ongoing functions of the Department of the Special Minister of State. Establishment and operating costs are therefore not separately identifiable. Administration of the scheme currently forms a minor part of the functions of a Senior Executive Service officer. (4) From the inception of the scheme in December 1983 up to 30 September 1986, a total of 25 lobbyists have been entered on the Special Register as representing foreign governments or agencies of such governments. During the same period 177 lobbyists were entered on the General Register as representing domestic clients. In the latter case, the current registration figure is 166 reflecting the fact that a number of lobbying activities directed at the Commonwealth Government have been wound up. (5) Nil. (6) No complaint has been received by the Registrar of Lobbyists that any registrable lobbying activity has occurred outside the operation of the scheme. (7) Under the scheme all information is provided on the basis it will remain confidential to the Government. Public disclosure of the requested information would breach that confidentiality. (Question No. 1411) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) Who will be conducting the proposed review of the Launceston Railways Workshop, as provided by the Minister in his release 190/86 of 1 October 1986. (2) What is the proposed commencement date. (3) When will the report be handed down. (4) What limits will be placed on expenditure recommendations made to re-establish an ``efficient workshops operation''. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Australian National Railways Commission (AN) will have the responsibility for undertaking this review. AN will continue to consult with appropriate unions and relevant Departments as part of this process. (2) The review is already underway. (3) I have requested the report be presented by the end of March 1987. (4) The Government has not set any limits. I would expect any recommendations to be based on an assessment of the costs and benefits of alternative proposals. (Question No. 1244) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 July 1986: (1) On what basis was the decision taken to remove the Department of Aviation/Search and Rescue Unit from Alice Springs. (2) What measures were undertaken to assess the impact of the removal of this facility, in terms of air safety in the Alice Springs area. (3) When were any such assessments made. (4) When was the decision to remove the facility made. (5) Has the Minister for Aviation received any advice on the impact of the drought, and in particular, its effect upon flight conditions in the Alice Springs region; if so, what advice of this nature has the Minister received. (6) Will the Minister reconsider the decision to remove the facility, in view of the concerns of many people associated with the aviation industry in Alice Springs at the removal of this facility; if not, what facility is proposed to replace the one proposed to be removed. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government has endorsed development by the Department of Aviation of an Airways Plan designed to increase efficiency and productivity within the Airways System while maintaining or improving levels of air safety and continuing to provide adequate air traffic services. A key element of this plan is the consolidation of air traffic services into fewer, larger centres where staff resources may be used more efficiently. Modern communications technology allows a more centralised system than was feasible in earlier years. It is in this context that the operational functions of the Alice Springs OCU/RSC are to be transferred to the Adelaide Operational Control and Rescue Co-ordination Centre (OCC/RCC). (2) A thorough examination of operational requirements was made prior to the closure decision. This examination confirmed that Adelaide could assume the existing Alice Springs' operational control and search and rescue responsibilities without affecting air safety in Alice Springs area. (3) The methods of providing operational services are under continuous review. The assessments relating to the decision to close the Alice Springs unit were part of this on-going process. (4) The decision to close the unit at Alice Springs was made in mid-1986. (5) No special advice on the impact of drought in relation to flight operations in the Alice Springs area has been received. The effect of drought and associated dust conditions on flight operations is well known by my Department and was one of the factors considered in the process of deciding to close the Alice Springs unit. (6) No. Adequate operational control and search and rescue services will be provided from the Adelaide OCC/RCC. (Question No. 1265) Senator Sheil asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Will the Treasurer explain why the imposition of a 20 per cent sales tax imposed on certain aluminium products of industrial and commercial use as of 19 May 1986 was not preceded by notification of retailers that they were obliged to add this tax to their charges. (2) Will the Treasurer explain why this new tax was levied on this particular group of aluminium products. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Sub-item 82a (1) in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemption and Classifications) Act exempts from sales tax piping or tubing of a kind used exclusively, or primarily and principally, in the construction or repair of, and wrought into, or attached to, so as to form part of, buildings, fixtures, structures or other works. The Commissioner of Taxation has informed me that a review of the operation of the sub-item was recently conducted for the purpose of issuing guidelines on the extent to which piping and tubing are exempt from sales tax under the sub-item. On the completion of the review, advice on the sales tax classification of piping and tubing products was issued to all sales taxpayers who were either known to be in the business of marketing piping or tubing products or could be identified as likely to be engaged in that business. As some taxpayers have been treating products as exempt from sales tax which, following the review, were considered to be taxable, liability to tax was made effective from a future date in order to give them time to adjust their accounting systems and prices. The date fixed was 19 May 1986. As sales tax is a wholesale tax, liability for sales tax generally falls on manufacturers and wholesalers and not on retailers. Accordingly, it was not necessary to notify retailers of the rulings except where they had a sales tax liability, i.e. manufacturing retailers and retailers making wholesale sales. Retailers who were identified as affected by the rulings were notified by the Taxation Office. (2) There has been no sales tax on aluminium products. As explained in the answer to the first question, some taxpayers who had been treating taxable piping as exempt were advised of the correct classification and required to account for tax on sales of such products from 19 May 1986. (Question No. 1386) Senator Siddons asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1986: (1) Can the Treasurer inform the Parliament which companies have received `naturalised' and `naturalising' status under the Government's new foreign investment guidelines. (2) How many such applications have been rejected. (3) Has the Government monitored all companies who have been granted `naturalising' status to ensure that they comply with their original commitments on naturalisation. (4) What has the Government done about those companies who have not complied. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Companies granted naturalised and naturalising status under the naturalisation provisions of foreign investment policy are as follows: Company Date naturalising/ naturalised status granted Naturalising CRA Ltd... 15.5.79 Naturalised Tubemakers of Australia Ltd... 11.5.79 MIM Holdings Ltd... 3.12.79 AMATIL Ltd... 27.7.80 Aberfoyle Limited... 17.11.81 Renison Goldfields Limited... 7.5.82 Comalco Limited... 12.5.83 Ashton Mining NL... 1.4.86 A number of subsidiaries of these companies have also been granted naturalising/naturalised status. (2) Nil. A few companies contemplating naturalisation have had discussions with the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) but have not, so far, lodged an application for naturalising status. (3) Yes. In granting `naturalising' status, the Government requires companies to consult regularly with the FIRB. These consultations are designed to ensure that undertakings provided by naturalising companies are met and that majority Australian ownership is reached. (4) Should a company not adhere to the understandings reached with the Government, the rights granted under the naturalisation provisions of foreign investment policy could be withdrawn. No such action has been necessary to this time. Senator Walsh —On 12 February 1986 (Hansard, page 169) Senator Siddons asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning Australia's foreign debt. As part of my answer I undertook to ask the Treasurer whether consideration had been given to controlling and regulating the inflow and outflow of capital. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: Prior to floating the Australian dollar in December 1984, as part of the exchange rate system, there was an extensive array of exchange controls directed primarily towards controlling capital flows. These controls were almost completely removed concurrently with the Government's decision to float the Australian dollar. That decision both reflected, and was a response to, the increasing integration of the Australian and international capital markets. Re-introduction of exchange controls would be inconsistent with the Government's deregulatory initiatives in the financial sector and would have significant costs, both administratively for authorities and business, and in terms of inefficiencies in the operation of international capital flows. The pre-float experience of capital controls pointed up the limitations of exchange controls in controlling large undesirable capital movements. Moreover capital controls were part of the apparatus whereby the former Government maintained an overvalued exchange rate which has had such detrimental effects on Australian industry. Senator Walsh —On 19 March 1986 (Hansard, page 1233) Senator Siddons asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, a question without notice concerning technical aspects of company takeovers. Senator Button undertook to seek advice from the Treasurer, who has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The issues raised by Senator Siddons have now been addressed in depth in Treasury Economic Paper No. 12 entitled ``Some Economic Implications of Takeovers''. The main points flowing from that analysis are presented below. The basic purpose of section 46 is to ensure that dividends paid out of income on which company tax may already have been paid once are not subject to further taxation as they pass through the corporate chain before being taxed again (under the classical system) in the hands of the individual shareholder. High Court decisions between 1931 and 1953 have resulted in a situation where virtually no interest deductions need be subtracted from dividends in calculating the section 46 rebate unless they exclusively relate to the earning of dividends. Because some legal uncertainty may still exist on that point, arrangements such as those alluded to by Senator Siddons appear to have been used by some companies in acquiring shares in other companies in order to avoid the risk of interest expenses having to be deducted from the share dividends received in calculating the section 46 rebate on those dividends. The question whether the section 46 rebate should be calculated on the basis of gross dividends received or net dividends after the deduction of associated interest expenses has been raised in connection with corporate takeover issues. The view expressed in Treasury Economic Paper No. 12 is that neither the history of sections 46 and 50, nor an in-principal analysis of how they ought to operate, compels the conclusion that they should work along the lines suggested in the question. (Question No. 1086) Senator Vigor asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) How many nuclear reactors without containment buildings is the Department of Resources and Energy aware of. (2) In which countries are they to be found. (3) Are any special steps being taken to internationally monitor ageing nuclear reactors. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Detailed specifications of the various types of nuclear reactors are not held by my Department. However, I note that each reactor type has different inherent characteristics, and hence requires different design features and safety systems to ensure safe operation under all foreseeable conditions. A containment structure is only one of the engineered safety systems which may be relevant to a particular reactor. Thus a realistic comparison of the overall safety levels of different reactor types would require a detailed study of many complex issues, and cannot be based on a consideration of containment provisions alone. (3) While I am not aware of any special steps being taken to internationally monitor aging nuclear reactors, I note that reactor safety is not necessarily related to the age of a reactor. (Question No. 1122) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) What was the expected new investment in Queensland in 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85, under foreign investment proposals examined by the Foreign Investment Review Board. (2) What was the total expected new foreign investment identified from the 6 states and 2 territories, as a bloc, in each of the above years. (3) What was the share of new foreign investment in Queensland as a percentage of total new investment in the states and territories in each of the above years. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Information relevant to these questions is provided in the table below. Considerable caution should be exercised in interpreting these estimates of expected expenditure associated with proposals. These estimates record the intentions of foreign investors, as indicated in their submissions to the Foreign Investment Review Board, regarding direct investment in Australia at the time their proposals are decided by the Government. The amount of expenditure ultimately incurred in respect of particular proposals may be spread over several years and may be dependent upon the success of takeover bids, satisfactory results from feasibility studies, and other factors. Foreign Investment Proposals (a) Year Expected New Investment (a) in Queensland ($ million) Total (b) Expected New Investment (a) ($ million) Queensland's Share of Total Expected New Investment (per cent) 1982-83... 166 1,248 13.3 1983-84... 499 1,879 26.6 1984-85... 207 1,516 13.7 (a) New investment proposed to be undertaken following an acquisition or the establishment of a new business. (b) Totals exclude `off-shore' acquisitions and proposals where the expenditure was expected to be undertaken in more than one State or Territory. (Question No. 1148) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) Is the Taxation Office currently issuing assessments to taxpayers, not allowing credits for prescribed payments tax already paid by the taxpayers. (2) Does provisional tax liability arising out of these assessments take account of those credits for prescribed payments tax. (3) Are these assessments due and payable, in total, prior to the end of the financial year. (4) Have any of these assessments been issued as long as 4 months after the returns have been lodged with the Taxation Office. (5) Is the Taxation Office empowered to proceed with legal action and impose penalties on the full amount stated as owing, in the notices of assessment, even though those notices of assessment, in fact, result in the taxpayers being triple taxed when the provisions tax effect is considered. (6) Is interest on outstanding tax charged at 20 per cent without a tax deduction. (7) Will any subsequent refunds to the taxpayer bear interest at 14 per cent, and will any such interest be taxable. (8) Are such income tax assessments being used to inflate estimates of tax collections and/or outstanding tax liabilities for the year ended 30 June 1986. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised me that some assessments have issued which do not include an amount of credit equal to the amount due to the taxpayer. There are a number of reasons for this, some to do with payer and payee error and omission, others arising from administrative oversight. The Commissioner of Taxation advised that a range of additional measures are being introduced to streamline the processing of returns with prescribed payment credit. These measures should also significantly reduce the number of disputes about the amount of prescribed payment credit allowed in assessments. (2) The Commissioner advised that the credit which has been allowed in the taxpayer's assessment is taken into account when calculating provisional tax. (3) The Commissioner has advised that assessments are due and payable on the date specified in the notice of assessment or on the 30th day after service of the notice on the taxpayer, whichever is the later. Thus, normally, if an assessment issues more that 30 days before the end of June, that assessment will be due for payment before the end of the financial year. (4) The Commissioner acknowledges that some assessments have issued more than 4 months after the returns were lodged. These returns represent the most difficult ``mismatch'' cases. (5) The Taxation Office is empowered to proceed with legal action to recover outstanding tax whether a dispute exists or not. Additional tax on amounts unpaid accrues at the rate of 20% per annum from the date on which the tax became due and payable. The Commissioner assures me that where a discrepancy as to the amount of prescribed payment credit is resolved in the taxpayer's favour, the taxpayer is not required to bear any penalty in relation to the amount involved in the discrepancy. Where an assessment is the subject of a genuine dispute, an extension of time for payment of portion of the amount of tax in dispute is generally allowed. (6) Yes. However, the Commissioner is authorised to remit the additional tax, or part of the additional tax, in limited circumstances. The additional tax is not allowable as a deduction against assessable income. (7) A taxpayer who successfully objects or appeals against an assessment is entitled to interest on any resultant refund of tax overpaid. No interest is payable on refunds resulting from original assessments. The current interest rate is 14.026%, and any amount of interest paid or applied under the relevant provisions is itself assessable income. (8) No. The Commissioner has assured me that the estimates in respect of tax collections and outstanding tax liabilities represent an accurate and realistic estimate of the collections and liabilities for the year ended 30 June 1986. (Question No. 1220) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 13 June 1986: (1) What is the expected cost to the CSIRO of its industrial property portfolio in the financial year 1985-86. (2) What is the expected income from the licensing of innovations from the CSIRO's industrial property portfolio. (3) Which division of the CSIRO patented innovations in the year 1985-86. (4) Which divisions patented innovations in the years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The cost to CSIRO of its industrial property portfolio in 1985-86 was $457,000. (2) The income from patent royalties and licence agreements associated with the Industrial and Intellectual Property of CSIRO for the financial year 1985-86 was $914,000. (3) CSIRO Divisions which patented innovations during the year 1985-86 and the number of innovations patented were: Animal Health ... 3 Animal Production ... 5 Applied Organic Chemistry ... 2 Applied Physics ... 6 Atmospheric Research ... 2 Building Research ... 1 Centre for Irrigation Research ... 1 Chemical and Wood Technology ... 2 Chemical Physics ... 4 Food Research ... 4 Forest Research ... 1 Fossil Fuels ... 6 Human Nutrition ... 1 Materials Science ... 3 Mineral Chemistry ... 1 Mineral Engineering ... 4 Mineral Physics and Mineralogy ... 1 Minerals and Geochemistry ... 1 Molecular Biology ... 4 Protein Chemistry ... 2 Wheat Research ... 2 Total ... 56 (4) CSIRO Divisions which patented innovations in the years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 and the number of innovations patented were: 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 Animal Health ... 2 2 3 Animal Production ... 1 1 3 Applied Organic Chemistry ... 3 5 6 Applied Physics ... 2 4 6 Atmospheric Research ... . . . . 1 Building Research ... . . 1 3 Bureau of Information and Public Communication ... 1 1 . . Centre for Irrigation Research ... . . . . 1 Chemical and Wood Technology ... 3 4 2 Chemical Physics ... 2 4 4 Energy Technology ... 1 . . . . Entomology ... 1 . . 1 Fisheries Research ... . . 1 . . Food Research ... 4 4 3 Forest Research ... . . 1 2 Fossil Fuels ... 1 . . 2 Geomechanics ... 1 . . 1 Groundwater Research ... . . 1 . . Manufacturing Technology ... 3 4 2 Materials Science ... 2 6 7 Mineral Chemistry ... 2 1 2 Mineral Engineering ... 1 3 3 Mineral Physics and Mineralogy ... . . 1 1 Molecular Biology ... 2 4 2 Plant Industry ... 1 1 . . Protein Chemistry ... 2 2 2 Radiophysics ... 1 1 1 Textile Industry ... 1 2 1 Textile Physics ... 1 2 2 Tropical Animal Science ... 2 1 2 Total ... 40 57 63 (Question No. 1230) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: Can the Special Minister of State outline what new commitments and funding are to be provided for the following agencies as a direct result of the ``Drug Offensive'', for example, programs that were not promised prior to 1 May 1986- (a) the National Crime Authority; (b) the Australian Federal Police; and (c) the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a), (b) and (c): The Special Premiers' Conference on Drugs while agreeing to place a major emphasis on reducing the demand for drugs, made it clear that a continuing law enforcement input to the national drug strategy was important in approaching the complex problem of illicit drug abuse. Federal law enforcement agencies are one of the few areas of public administration to receive financial and staffing increases in the 1986-87 Budget: The NCA's staffing level was increased, following a review of its staffing requirements, from 225 to an ASL of 258.7. Funds for the NCA have now increased from $12.5 million in 1985-86 to $14.9 million in 1986-87, an increase of approximately 20 per cent. The AFP's funding has increased by $7.5 million, which includes an increase in staffing resources of 100 as part of the three year program to strengthen the AFP. The ABCI received funding for the second instalment of the $1.5 million committed by the Government during the Special Premiers' Conference on Drugs (ie., $0.5 million), and all other areas of the Commonwealth's contribution to the ABCI received significant increases amounting to some $330,734 to bring the total allocation for the ABCI to $2.22 million. (Question No. 1283) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What reclassification of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since 5 March 1983? (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications? Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) One Senior Executive Service position has been reclassified in my Department since 5 March 1983. (2) Date of effect was 31 January 1984. Salary details of the reclassification at current salary levels are: (Old) SES Level 1 at $48,867 (New) SES Level 2 at $53,632 (Question No. 1332) Senator Collard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) If the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment's decision ``to suspend for the time being the processing of permits for exports of all wildlife products subject to management programs'' (news release No. 61 of 18 June 1986) was based on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) Report, can the Minister advise what part of the Report suggested that he should take such a decision. (2) If the Minister did not base his decision solely on the AAT Report, what other criteria were used in his decision to suspend export permits. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1 & 2) As explained in my press release of 18 June, while the immediate effect of the AAT decision was to prevent the further export of products of kangaroos culled in Queensland in 1985, the findings of the AAT had ramifications for all management programs approved under the Wildlife Protection Act. I requested that the matter of management programs be urgently considered at a meeting of Commonwealth and State Conservation Ministers. On 10 July, following confirmation by the States that the approved management programs were being implemented and that they would provide the Commonwealth with reports on a regular basis, the suspension on processing permits was lifted. (Question No. 1394) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) What are considered to be the major conservation values of the Shelburne Bay area. (2) What significance does the Shelburne Bay area have for local Aboriginal people. (3) What level of competition will there be between the proposed Shelburne Bay sand mine and the current operations at Cape Flattery. (4) Will current markets support both operations at a profitable level. (5) How many people are employed at Cape Flattery and how many would be employed at Shelburne Bay. (6) What damage will be done to the Shelburne Bay area if sand mining is permitted. (7) What stage of considering approvals for the proposed sand mining has now been reached. (8) Is the Minister satisfied with the current Environmental Impact Statement. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1, 3-8) A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was available for public review in June. Submissions lodged by 11 August 1986 are being taken into account in the preparation of the final EIS. On receipt of the final EIS, the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment is to prepare an assessment report for the Hon. Barry Cohen M.P. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to comment now on the EIS. The matters raised by the Senator will be covered in the final EIS. I therefore refer Senator Jones to that document when it becomes available. (2) The matter has been addressed in my answer to part (2) of question 1399. (Question No. 1399) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) What will be the effects on the Aboriginal community of Shelburne Bay if existing and proposed sand mining ventures are allowed to go ahead. (2) How many Aborigines live in the area and what significance does Shelburne Bay hold for them. (3) Has there been any claim by Aboriginal communities for land rights in that area. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1 & 2) In the early part of this century the Wuthathi people were removed and effectively excluded from land over which it is now acknowledged they retain strong traditional affiliation. Their territory includes Shelburne Bay. Notwithstanding the dispersed residence of the Wuthathi people, I understand visits have been made to this area. For several generations it has not been possible, legally, for the Wuthathi people to live permanently at Shelburne Bay. I have received a report prepared by Dr A. Chase of the University of Queensland which provides documentation of Wuthathi traditions and affiliation to sites in their territory. I note that if the proposes silica sand mining proceeds there may be substantial damage to a major identified site. In addition Aboriginals may be denied access to their territory. (3) No. There is no provision under Queensland legislation for such a land claim. (Question No. 1416) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 9 October 1986: (1) Can the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment advise what the Federal Government's response is to the Queensland Government's decision to pre-empt the final environment impact statement by issuing a mining lease for the mining of silica at Shelburne Bay. (2) Will the Federal Government take steps to ensure that no precipitous work is undertaken until the due environmental procedures are complete and informed decisions can be made as this area of Cape York is listed as part of the National Estate and furthermore as the silica mining proposal is dependent on construction work on fringing reefs and a rainforest island of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am aware of the decision by the Queensland Minister for Mines to grant a mining lease for the mining of silica sand at Shelburne Bay in North Queensland. However, no Commonwealth decision will be made on this proposal until the Commonwealth environmental assessment procedures are completed. (2) As the honourable senator may be aware, the proponent for the Shelburne Bay proposal, Shelburne Silica Joint Venture, is currently preparing a final environmental impact statement (EIS) to take into account comments received during the public review of the draft EIS. When completed, the final EIS will be submitted to my Department for assessment and report to me. Following this, I shall make recommendations to the Treasurer, who has responsibility for Commonwealth decisions in this case. The honourable senator may be assured that all the environmental aspects of this proposal, including its impact on National Estate areas and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park will be taken into account in coming to a decision. (Question No. 1440) Senator Morris asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 15 October 1986: Is excise payable on the beer-based cooler made by Bond Corporation, IC Cooler; if not, why not? Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Excise duty is not payable on the product IC Cooler manufactured by the Bond Corporation. In accordance with Section 5 of the Excise Tariff Act duties of excise are imposed on all goods dutiable under the Schedule to the Act. IC Cooler is not a product that falls within the description of goods listed in the Schedule and therefore no excise duties are payable. Senator Gareth Evans —On 23 September 1986 (Hansard, page 701) Senator Cook asked me, as Minister representing the Special Minister of State, the following question without notice: Given that an examination of the compulsory returns from political parties since the 1984 Federal election does not disclose any donations from Mr Ric New or his 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. The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was amended in 1984 to require all political parties to disclose after an election all donations of $1000 or more received since the last election, apart from those which were made on the condition that they be used for a purpose other than a purpose related to an election, and which were so used. Following the 1984 election the Australian Electoral Commission had proposed to audit a sample of parties' financial records in order to establish how well parties had understood, and fulfilled, their obligations under the new funding and disclosure provisions. The Opposition parties, however, challenged the legality of the proposed audit. The proposed audit was subsequently abandoned by the Electoral Commission in the light of legal advice it received that there is no power under the Electoral Act to require parties to produce records in order to establish whether the provisions requiring disclosure of donations have been complied with. In the absence of that power I am unable to advise whether or not donations have been received by the Western Australian Branch of the Liberal Party which should have been disclosed. I have drawn the legal advice to the attention of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which is currently examining the operation of the 1984 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. (Question No. 1057) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 May 1986: (1) How many employees have been allocated to implement and administer the fringe benefits tax to take effect from 1 July 1986- (a) on a full-time basis; (b) on a permanent part-time basis; and (c) on a contractual or consultancy basis. (2) What is the total anticipated expenditure on salaries and wages for (a) and (c) for a full year of operation of the fringe benefits tax. (3) What are the names of the individuals or organisations contracted in relation to (c) and what are the terms of their contracts and the anticipated duration. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) 590, (b) nil at this time; and (c) 4. (2) $13,456,651 for (a) and $300,000 for (c). (3)- Name Location Terms of contract Anticipated duration Computer People Corner Geils Court and Denison St, West Deakin, ACT 1600 Standard as per Commonwealth panel period contract PA 29 for on-site programming and design services Contracted for the period 1 July to 31 December 1986. At this point agreements would be sought to extend contracts for a further six months. IDAPS 13 London Circuit, Canberra, ACT 2601 Standard as per Commonwealth panel period contract PA 29 for on-site programming and design services Contracted for the period 1 July to 31 December 1986. At this point agreements would be sought to extend contracts for a further six months (Question No. 1259) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Is the Japanese Government Power Nuclear Corporation (PNC) continuing a search for uranium mineralisation in the Officer Basin area in Western Australia. (2) Has the uranium search led miners right up to and over the borders of the Cundeelee Mission Reserve, where the Wankatja people settled after fleeing the Maralinga atomic tests in the 1950s. (3) Have the Wankatja people now been moved by the Government to Coonana, ostensibly to overcome the chronic water supply problem, despite the fact that water is of little better quality at Coonana. (4) Was the issuing of Mining Licence M28/15 on 15 February 1985 to PNC in direct contravention of Federal Australian Labor Party Policy Clause 58. (5) Has the PNC dug an `exploration pit' 200 ft x 100 ft x 40 ft deep and shipped ore to Japan from Fremantle. (6) Has any uranium been exported from the exploration operation in the Officer Basin to Japan or anywhere else, between November 1983 and July 1986. (7) If uranium has been exported between the dates given in (6) above, then- (a) on what dates was it exported; (b) how much was exported; (c) in what form was it exported; (d) through which ports; and (e) for what purpose was it to be used. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Western Australian Mines Department confirms that there has been no uranium exploration or mining on the Cundeelee Reserve, although the company has identified a uranium deposit approximately 40 kilometres north of the Reserve. PNC has not sought permission to enter the Reserve at any stage. (3) The Aboriginal Development Commission, after full consultation and with the agreement of the community, purchased the Coonana pastoral lease for the Upurl Upurlila Ngurratja Community in 1983 because the Cundeelee area had proven incapable of sustaining a water supply for the community. Since then, all members of the community of approximately 360 people have elected to move to Coonana. All the movements have been completely voluntary, and occurred progressively as small groups made their own decision. It is hoped that an adequate water supply can be progressively developed at Coonana which has better capabilities for surface catchments. The chemical quality of water at both Cundeelee and Coonana is excellent, and the bacteriological quality is slightly better at Coonana owing to the community not camping in the catchment area. Both sites are bacteriologically treated, although Cundeelee has been unoccupied since January 1986. (4) The Commonwealth has no authority in respect of the granting of mining leases in Western Australia, such granting being the responsibility of the State Government. However, there has been no change to the Federal Government's policy, which permits exports of uranium from only the Ranger, Nabarlek, and Olympic Dam projects. The PNC operation is at the exploration stage and it is unlikely to proceed to the development stage in circumstances where it is unable to obtain export permits. (5) and (6) PNC operations are authorised by the Western Australian Government and information on exploration activities should be obtained from Western Australia. There have been no shipments of uranium from PNC's Officer Basin (Mulga Rock) prospect. (7) See (6). (Question No. 1273) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since March 5, 1983. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There have been two reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions since 5 March 1983 in the Department of the Treasury. (2) The reclassification levels involved, dates and salary details are as follows: (i) 1 x Senior Executive Level 3 reclassified to Senior Executive Level 4. Level 3 salary, $52,651. Level 4 salary, $56,840 Effective from 2 October 1984. (ii) 1 x Senior Executive Level 1 reclassified to Senior executive Level 2. Level 1 salary, $43,974. Level 2 salary, $48,262 Effective from 2 October 1984. (Question No. 1381) Senator Sheil asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) What evidence is available that pilots who were granted dispensations in licencing requirements prior to the policy change in mid-1974, are in any way less safe or less competent to fly in Australia than locally trained pilots. (2) When, under what circumstances, and for what specific reasons did the Department of Aviation decide to revoke their longstanding practice of accepting the US Airline Transport Pilot Licence as an equivalent to the Australian SCPL, without the need for additional requirements. (3) Where there any significant precedents for such action which could be definitely proven to have had a significant adverse effect on Australian air safety. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) My department has no information regarding the relative safety or competence of individual pilots who have been issued with Australian pilot licences on the basis of foreign qualifications. (2) The change of policy followed a review which showed that the written examinations for issue of the ATR are significantly less searching than Australian SCPL examinations. However it is recognised that practical commercial operating experience in the USA could lead to an equivalent standard through the influence of airline training organisations. Since 19 June 1975 the US Air Transport Rating (ATR) has not been recognised as the equivalent of the Australian Senior Commercial Pilot Licence unless the holder of the ATR has made significant use of the qualification. ``Significant Use'' means at least 200 hours pilot in command on heavy aircraft on scheduled overseas commercial operations. (3) Standards and procedures in regard to flight crew licensing are under continual review, both internationally at ICAO and in Australia. The variation referred to above was part of this continual review process which has led to many improvements in Australian air safety over the years. Senator Walsh —On 20 August 1986 (Hansard, page 133-135) Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice, concerning the estimate of the number of unemployment benefit recipients in 1986-87. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The estimate of the number of unemployment benefit recipients in 1986-87 is based on forecasts of the number of unemployed persons and of the ratio of recipients to unemployed. The number of unemployed persons, in turn, depends upon the rate of growth of employment and the rate of growth of the labour force. Employment grew very strongly in 1985-86 (3.9 per cent) and a slow-down to about 1.75 per cent is expected in 1986-87. Much of the forecast growth in the average level of employment for 1986-87 is accounted for by the strong increase in employment through the course of 1985-86. Employment growth is expected to be modest through the remainder of 1986-87. The labour force participation rate (and, therefore, the labour force) grew strongly through 1985-86 and is currently at a high level. It is expected that the participation rate will level out and perhaps decline a little through 1986-87 due, in part, to the weakening in labour demand. This would slow the rate of growth of the labour force. The above considerations imply some increase in the unemployment rate in 1986-87 from its average level of 7.9 per cent in 1985-86. There has been a long-term rising trend in the number of unemployment benefit recipients as a proportion of the number of unemployed persons. In 1985-86, the ratio was 95.5 per cent, compared with 94.6 per cent in 1984-85 and 78.9 per cent in 1981-82. A further increase in this ratio was assumed for 1986-87, before allowance for the improvements in unemployment benefit administration announced in the Budget. On the foregoing basis, the number of unemployment benefit recipients was estimated to rise from 559,000 in 1985-86 to 605,000 in 1986-87. The administrative improvements announced in the Budget are estimated to reduce this number to 595,000, which is the basis of the Budget estimate of unemployment benefit outlays. (Question No. 1142) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 2 June 1986: (1) In what areas of Australia are the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's transmission of the proceedings of both Houses of the Federal Parliament actually broadcast. (2) Is it intended to extend the broadcasting of Parliament to all Australians in a position now, or in the future, who might wish to receive the transmissions. (3) What is the reason for some areas covered by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation not receiving the Parliamentary broadcasts. (4) What have been the levels of complaints to the Minister for Communications or the Department about the non reception of broadcasts of proceedings of the Federal Parliament. Senator Walsh —The following answer to the honourable senator's question has been supplied by the Minister for Communications and is based on information provided by the ABC: (1) The proceedings of Parliament are broadcast on one ABC medium-wave station in the capital city of each State, and in Newcastle and Canberra. (2) The hours of broadcast, the station involved and the choice of which House's proceedings are broadcast are determined by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, acting in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act, 1946. (3) See (2)-the ABC has no jurisdiction over which areas are covered. (4) A search of departmental files has not revealed any complaints, to the Minister for Communications or the Department of Communications, about the non reception of broadcasts of proceedings of the Federal Parliament. (Question No. 1356) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: Has the Minister's Department, any Statutory Body or Authority under the control of the Minister granted funds to the Tasmanian Trade Union Community Research Centre since 5 March 1983, if so: (a) under what schemes/programs were these grants given; (b) what was the amount of money involved for these grants; (c) who administered these grants; (d) what were the purposes of the schemes/programs; (d) why were these grants necessary. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No funds have been granted to the Tasmanian Trade Union Community Research Centre by my Department or a Statutory Body under my control since 5 March 1983. (Question No. 1377) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: Has the Government made a decision to fund the African National Congress and the South West African People's Organisation via the Commonwealth Secretariat or some other means; if so, what is the amount of the allocation, how is the allocation to be administered, what conditions apply to the use of the allocated money, and which Government Department is responsible for this expenditure; if not, does the Government have any intention of providing funds to these organisations in the future. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government does not fund the African National Congress (ANC) and the South West African Peoples Organisation (SWAPO) via the Commonwealth Secretariat. The Government position regarding the representation of the ANC and SWAPO in Australia was stated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 26 October 1983. No government funding is made available to either organisation in respect of the information offices they have established. The Government does, however, provide funding for a limited range of humanitarian programs for southern Africa and in some instances the southern African nationalist movements are eligible for assistance under these programs. These programs are: provision of undergraduate scholarships in Australia for black South African and Namibian refugees. This program is managed by the Commonwealth Secretariat in London and is open to student nominations from the nationalist movements (ANC/SWAPO/ and Pan Africanist Congress); humanitarian assistance through multilateral channel to various United Nations Funds for Namibian and southern African refugees, including education ($320,000 in 1985/86); a scholarship program for tertiary studies in South Africa for black South Africans, administered since 1983 through the Australian mission in Pretoria (A$84,000 in 1984/85); a program through non-government organisations for trade union training and post graduate study in Australia. These two programs are administered by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau in co-operation with the ACTU and the Australian Council of Churches (A$100,000 in 1985/86); The Government has made provision in the 1986/87 Budget to establish a humanitarian assistance program for black South Africans, Namibian and black South African refugees amounting to $5 million over five years. This program will be available for education and training, including members of the nationalist movements. The program will enable a considerable expansion of existing activities outlined above and will be managed by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau and the Department of Foreign Affairs. (Question No. 1424) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: (1) What information is known, or held, by the Department of Foreign Affairs or any other Department, about a West German political organisation known as ``Hanns Seidel Foundation''. (2) What, if any, leading West German political figures have affiliations with the Foundation. (3) Is any West German political party affiliated with the Foundation. (4) Has any delegation or representative from the Hanns Seidel Foundation visited Australia in 1986 or any other time, if so, what are details of such visit or visits. (5) If this visit or visits took place what was the purpose of such visits to Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Hanns Seidel Foundation was set up in October 1961 in memory of Hanns Seidel, Premier of Bavaria 1957-1960. The avowed aim of the Foundation is to promote political education on a Christian basis. It is proposed to collectivist ideologies. To achieve its aim the Foundation has a number of Departments concentrating on research, education, foreign relations and development. In the Federal Republic of Germany it organises seminars, specialist conferences and meetings on a large range of current political, education, and ethical topics. It organises training workshops in many areas, for example, trade unionism and youth leadership. Both Germans and foreigners attend these events with the financial assistance of the Foundation. Outside the Federal Republic of Germany the Foundation runs educational, training and health projects in countries in Africa, Central and South America, the Middle East, South East Asia and the Pacific. In these countries, the Foundation has a local partner organisation, often a church body. (2) and (3.) The Hanns Seidel Foundation is directly associated with the Christian Social Union party (CSU). The CSU forms the Government in the State of Bavaria and is a participant in the Federal Coalition Government. The Premier of Bavaria, Mr Franz Joseph Strauss, is a member of the Board of the Foundation. (4) and (5). The Government has no knowledge of a visit or visits by members of the Hanns Seidel Foundation to Australia. (Question No. 689) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: When will replies to the following questions be received: (a) 15, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, all of 1985 and first appearing on the Notice Paper on 21 February 1985. (b) 91, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 of 1985, all first appearing on the Notice Paper of 19 March 1985. (c) 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209 of 1985, all first appearing on the Notice Paper of 16 April 1985. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Answer to the honourable senator's questions were provided on the dates shown below: Question 15- 3 December 1985 Question 22-16 April 1986 Question 23-11 February 1986 Question 24-29 April 1986 Question 25-11 February 1986 Question 26-12 February 1986 Question 91-19 March 1986 Question 98-18 September 1986 Question 99-17 February 1986 Question 100-11 March 1986 Question 101-14 February 1986 Question 102-11 March 1986 Question 103-11 February 1986 Question 104-20 February 1986 Question 202-11 February 1986 Question 203-11 February 1986 Question 204-11 February 1986 Question 205-11 February 1986 Question 206- 6 June 1986 Question 208- 7 October 1986 Question 209-11 February 1986 (Question No. 1224) Senator Short asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 12 June 1986: (1) Will the Minister for Communications in the light of material contained in an article by Anthony McAdam in The Bulletin of 10 June 1986, instigate an investigation into the decision of Australian Broadcasting Corporation's (ABC) management to have Mr Mark Aarons produce the radio series titled ``Nazis in Australia'' and to hire Mr John Loftus as his co-researcher; if not, why not. (2) Will the Minister investigate why, given the highly controversial nature of the series, no reputable historian of World War II appears to have been involved either in the programs or as a consultant. (3) Did the Corporation or management of the ABC responsible for ABC programs take any steps to ensure that the programs would be fair-minded and intellectually defensible; if so, what steps; and if not, why not. (4) Is the Minister concerned about the program's smear by insinuation of thousands of Australian citizens in several ethnic communities who share the universal Australian loathing of Nazism and, if so, will he ensure that disciplinary action is taken against the officers of the ABC concerned. (5) Do these programs violate the ABC's own explicit guidelines referring to balanced and fair-minded coverage of controversial issues; if so, will the Minister ensure that the ABC will, in the near future, broadcast a prominently featured and genuinely open discussion of the issues raised by the Aarons-Loftus series to which those ethnic communities smeared by insinuation in the programs can nominate their own spokesmen. (6) How much did the ABC spend on research and travel in the preparation of the radio series. (7) How much was Mr Loftus paid for his contribution to the series. (8) How much did the ABC spend on the lavish pre-broadcast press advertisements. (9) Was Mr Laurie Aarons, the former national secretary of the Communist Party of Australia, in any way engaged in researching the series; if so, in what capacity and what was he paid for his services. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has pointed out that this question relates to a programming matter and it is inappropriate for him to comment. Nevertheless he sought the advice of the ABC about questions (2) to (9) which is included in the following response. (1) No. The ABC as an independent statutory authority is able to make its own programming decisions and I do not consider it appropriate to interfere in these matters. (2) `Background Briefing-Nazis in Australia' did use a reputable historian of World War II. Professor Raoul Hilberg was interviewed in the series, and his information also was used in preparation for the programs. The producers, needless to say, read widely in preparation for the programs and a bibliography of the histories used in research would include many eminent, authoritative and internationally recognised historians. Professor Hilberg is recognised as one of the international experts on the Jewish Holocaust, and has testified in cases involving war criminals living in America. U.S. courts have described him as ``eminently qualified'' to give such expert testimony. (3) Yes, the Corporation did take such steps as it does with all its programs. The story is an important one. Mark Aarons is a senior journalist and producer with the ABC. The series was carefully researched and documented. Other senior people worked with and assisted Mr Aarons in his research and production, and each program was listened to by lawyers and editorial management before it went to air. (4) The programs did not smear any large groups by insinuation. The programs dealt only with the activities of certain groups who collaborated with the Nazi Government. At no time was anything said which concerned or implicated all the members of any European Community. The programs did not imply that those groups who collaborated with the Nazi authorities were supported by significant numbers of any regional population. The programs documented and investigated the history of some individuals and suggested a further investigation would reveal others who may have escaped the international judicial processes that were taking place after World War II. (5) The programs did not violate the ABC's guidelines on the coverage of controversial issues. They comprised journalistic investigation, using original material, which formed part of the process of community discussion and debate on a very important issue. The ABC has documentation and evidence for the issues raised in its programs. (6) There are two major components of the research involved in the preparation of the programs. One component comprised ongoing research, which falls within the normal salary and operational budgets allocated to the Talks Unit. The other major component was an overseas program gathering assignment, which is standard practice within the ABC for researching a story with such a significant overseas focus. Mark Aarons undertook a trip to Washington, London and Zagreb in June/July 1985. In addition to the standard staff travelling allowance, the costs involved were $3000 in airfares, and research costs of approximately $1500, covering search fees, photocopies of archival material and other necessary costs associated with an investigative project. During this trip Mark Aarons secured much of the material which was central to the accuracy of the program. (7) Mr Loftus was paid a fee which covered a return airfare Boston/Sydney, two internal airfares in the United States for the purpose of assisting Mark Aarons in research in that country, and a fee based on standard rates for research, scripting, and his on-air contributions to the programs. As is usual practice within the ABC, the fee is regarded as a confidential agreement between Mr Loftus and the ABC. (8) The ABC arranged for a series of press advertisements at a level considered appropriate for a major national radio feature series. Because of the importance to the community of the issues covered in the programs, the ABC considered that publicity warranted a high priority. The total cost of press advertising was $23,460.15, comprising $4,102.76 in production costs, and $19,357.39 for the advertising space. (9) Mr Laurie Aarons (Mr Mark Aarons father) was not engaged in researching the series. (Question No. 1282) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since March 5, 1983. (2) What were the dates and salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The number of reclassifications of positions in the Senior Executive Service total twelve. Details of these reclassifications including dates and salary details are listed in the following table: Old classification New classification Location Approval date Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 1 ($48,867) Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 2 ($53,632) Defence Purchasing Organisation. 15.4.85 Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 1 ($48,867) Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 2 ($53,632) Organisation and Manpower Resources. 23.10.85 Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 2 ($53,632) Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 1 ($48,867) Defence Science & Technology Programs & Administration. 23.10.85 Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 1 ($48,867) Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 2 ($53,632) Defence Facilities. 30.10.85 Director Senior Executive Level 4 ($63,164) Director Senior Executive Level 5 ($67,930) Defence Signals Directorate. 18.3.86 First Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 3 ($58,398) First Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 4 ($63,164) Financial Services & Audit. 18.3.86 Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 1 ($48,867) Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 2 ($53,632) Logistics Computing Centre. 30.6.86 Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 1 ($48,867) Assistant Secretary, Senior Executive Level 2 ($53,632) Manpower Computing Centre. 30.6.86 Director, Senior Executive Level 4 ($63,164) Director, Senior Executive Level 5 ($67,930) Joint Intelligence Organisation. 20.8.86 Deputy Director, Senior Executive Level 2 ($53,632) Deputy Director, Senior Executive Level 3 ($58,398) Joint Intelligence Organisation. 20.8.86 Assistant Director, Senior Executive Level 1 ($48,867) Assistant Director, Senior Executive Level 2 ($53,632) Joint Intelligence Organisation. 20.8.86 Assistant Director, Clerical Administrative Class 11 ($40,686-42,388) Assistant Director, Senior Executive Level 1 ($48,867) Joint Intelligence Organisation. 1.9.86 Note: Salary details are as at 1 September 1986. (Question No. 1286) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since March 5, 1983 (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Three Senior Executive Service positions have been reclassified since March 5, 1983 (2) Dates and salary details are as follows (salary rates shown are those applying at the time of the reclassification): Date Position Reclassified from Level/Salary Reclassified to Level/Salary 1.8.83 First Assistant Secretary Airports Division... Level 3 $48,400 Level 4 $52,350 27.9.84 Assistant Secretary Regular Public Transport Branch Flight Standards Division... Level 1 $43,974 Level 2 $48,262 2.10.85 First Assistant Secretary Resources Division... Level 3 $54,995 Level 4 $59,484 (Question No. 1336) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) Is the facility known as `call charge recording' available to subscribers to Telecom who wish to have an itemized telephone account for STD and ISD calls, if so, how widespread is the availability of this service. (2) Does the provision of this service involve a connection fee of $24 and an annual fee of $20. If so, how does the Minister for Communications justify these charges, given that there is no charge for itemizing STD and ISD calls in countries such as Canada and the USA, and that in these countries local calls are free of charge. (3) Is it possible for Telecom subscribers, other than those with a PABX system, to obtain an itemized account for local calls; if not, how can subscribers verify that they are being charged correctly for local calls. (4) If such a service is not available, will the Minister consider introducing the service. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Both ISD and STD Call Charge Record (CCR) are available to Telecom customers. ISD/CCR is currently available to approximately 3.3 million customers and will ultimately be provided to all customers as a standard service. On the other hand, STD/CCR is provided as an optional service and is available, within exchange capacity limitations, in all capital cities and the regional centres of Geelong and Mornington (Vic) and the Gold Coast (Qld). Further expansion in country areas is planned from 1987-88. (2) Because of the very large volume of STD calls, the provision of STD/CCR involves considerable additional capital investment by Telecom in major exchange equipment modifications and the provision of extensive data processing facilities. For this reason, Telecom applies a once only fee of $20 for connection to the service and an annual service fee of $24. Telecom also charges 10 cents usage fee per itemised STD call. However, as ISD call volumes are much lower, ISD/CCR can be provided at much less expense to Telecom and no charges apply for connection to the service. The only applicable charge is $1.20 each time an itemised statement of calls is requested. (3) Telecom's metering system does not allow for the provision of an itemised statement of local calls. However, there are several `in-house' facilities which Telecom uses to continuously monitor the performance of the metering system to ensure its accuracy. (4) The provision of local call CCR would require a major restructure of the telephone metering system as well as the provision of extensive data processing facilities. Telecom is not able to commit the very high level of capital investment required to provide this service. (Question No. 1351) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What criteria does the Government use when evaluating applications to export military equipment from Australia. (2) Which Australian-based public, or private, manufacturers have been granted permission to export military equipment in the past 5 years. (3) What categories of military equipment were exported by such manufacturers in the same period. (4) Which governments or private organisations purchased the above exports. (5) Does Australia still rank 12th in the list of defence equipment exporting countries as placed in the table put out by the Stockholm Peace Research Institute in 1980. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government's policy is to exercise close control over the export of defence materiel. Applications for the export of defence materiel are therefore considered on a case-by-case basis. They are not approved to countries against which the United Nations Security Council has decided to take enforcement measures or where there are international instruments of proscription, to which Australia is party. The criteria used in judging the applications comprise: Australian foreign policy interests (Australia does not generally export defence materiel to countries involved in, or likely to become involved in, military conflict or where there is strong evidence that the materiel would be used primarily in the suppression of legitimate domestic opposition); Australian strategic interests; the viability of Australia's defence industries. (2) Office of Defence Production, Andrew Antennas, Bullet Resistent Equipment Co, Miltec Systems, Fairey Australasia Pty Ltd, PJP Marine, GEC Marconi, Smith Industries Pty Ltd, Wormald Fire Systems, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Scott-Xtek Pty Ltd, McDonnell-Douglas, Walkers Ltd, JRA Ltd, James N. Kirkby Pty Ltd, Corn Products Fielders, Dept of Local Government and Administrative Services, North Queensland Engineers and Agents, Keogh Wood Management Pty Ltd, Mack Trucks Aust Pty Ltd, Precision Tools Annexa (trading as PTA Engineering), Cleveland Marine, Australian Training Aids Ltd. (3) Bombs, rifles and spares, firing device demolition, bomb charges, ammunition, base couplings, target silhouettes, HF communications equipment, body armour jackets, muzzle velocity indicators, surface trip flates, personal military equipment, propellant, protection plate anti-armour, amphibian collapsible canoes, mechanical items for demonstrator mines, fire fighting system components, bomb retarding fins, stun grenades, F/A-18 parts, landing craft spares, 66MM launcher (empty and inert), harpoon missile cases, smoke generators, detonators, land rovers 6 x 6, guided structural shell, fuses, sleeping bags, phosphorous oxychloride, ex RAAF Hercules aircraft and spares, patrol craft, trucks (army style), shafts (for standard missile parts), aluminium boats, blank firing attachments, rifle cleaning kits, training aids, radio controlled target equipment and associated equipment. (4) Government/Defence Forces-New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Bahamas, Brunei, Denmark, United States of America, United Kingdom, Malaysia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Yemen, Algeria, Colombia, France, Thailand, Pakistan, Jordan, Qatar, Oman, India, Abu Dhabi, Nepal, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Kuwait, Botswana, Egypt, Belgium, Canada, Fiji, Hong Kong, Mauritius, Portugal, Tonga, Brazil, Holland. Private Organisations-Mertonbond Pty Ltd, UK, A B Bofors, Sweden, Marconi Underwater Systems Ltd, England, McDonnell-Douglas, USA, New Zealand Starches, NZ, Ford and Vlahos, Alabama, USA, Lockheed Western Export Co, USA, General Dynamics, Pomona Div, USA. (5) Australia was ranked 12th in the list of defence exporting countries in table 8.1 of the 1978 yearbook Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and 10th in the 1980 yearbook. As with any statistics of this kind, there are data and definitional problems. Further, the SIPRI statistics, particularly at the lower end of the ranking, are sensitive to the use of SIPRI trend indicators and the tables are intended to be representative of arms trade patterns rather than absolute levels of exports. These reservations notwithstanding, a small group of countries dominate arms exports (with the first five ranked countries accounting for over 90 per cent of total exports), and in these years, Australia accounted for only 0.2 of 1 per cent and 0.7 of 1 per cent of world arms exports. Australia has not been given a separate ranking in the SIPRI yearbooks since 1980. Australia is also not given a separate ranking in the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's publication `World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers-1985'. (Question No. 1384) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: (1) Is the Department of Defence monitoring the incidence of injuries caused to male and female cadets in both officer and recruitment training; if so, what are the comparative injury records for each category or injury recorded for male and female cadets in both officer and recruitment training, in particular, what is the relative incidence of neck strain; sprains and strains of the muscles of the upper back, shoulders and shoulder blade area; strains of the mid-back; strains in the lumbosacral region, the sacro-iliac region and around the hips and groins; dislocated patellae; dislocated or sprained ankles; foot strain. (2) If there is any significant difference in the occurrence of injuries between male and female cadets, can the Minister give any explanation for this difference. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes; however, the monitoring is done at Unit level. The statistics are not collated centrally because the manpower and computing resources which would allow central collation and comparison are not available. The comparative injury records requested cannot, therefore, be provided. (2) An Army study now being conducted at Kapooka indicates there are significant differences in injury patterns between male and female recruit trainees in a few specific areas. The reasons for this are complex and multi-factorial in nature. More definitive results should be available on completion of the Army study in about early November 1986. Senator Button —On 9 October 1986 (Hansard, page 1083) Senator Short asked me a question without notice concerning the review of the Fringe Benefits Tax. I undertook to provide him with further information. The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Treasurer has had primary responsibility for conducting the review of administrative difficulties and unintended consequences associated with the implementation of the Fringe Benefits Tax. The Government has considered many submissions from interested parties, received both before and after my 7 October 1986 announcement of a review of the tax. In addition to considering these submissions, a number of professional organisations and employer groups were invited to put their views at meetings on 17 October 1986. In his Press Release of 29 October 1986, the Treasurer announced various changes to both the Fringe Benefits Tax and the Income Tax Assessment Act substantiation requirements. Senator Button —On 21 October 1986 (Hansard, page 1626) Senator Michael Baume asked me a question without notice concerning Government grants to the ``Women for Survival'' group. I undertook to provide him with an answer as soon as possible. The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question. I have been made aware of the grant of $2,000 provided to Ms Josephine Golding of Western Australia on behalf of ``Women for Survival'' under the International Year of Peace (IYP) program. This grant was recommended to the Minister for Foreign Affairs by the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament. As it is not known exactly which groups or individuals were involved in the protest outside Parliament House it is not possible to ascertain if other grants have been supplied to any of these individuals. No grants have been provided for the specific purpose of a demonstration outside the Parliament. (Question No. 1160) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: Does the Government support recommendation 40 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking concerning the introduction and maintenance of a system whereby police officers in high risk corruption areas such as drugs, gambling and vice, are frequently interchanged with police working outside those areas with no more than 2 or 3 years service in any one area; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police is conscious of the vulnerability of officers in the high risk corruption areas identified by the Royal Commissioner and has developed mechanisms of checks and balances to monitor the sensitive areas of police activity. (Question No. 1161) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) What considerations has the Government given to recommendation 45 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking concerning the use of uniformed police in areas of high corruption risk such as vice, gambling, licencing and drugs. (2) Does the Government support the use of uniformed police in the areas of high corruption risk outlined above; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Government and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) are aware of the particular risks of corruption in certain areas of policing and the possible development of a `culture' receptive to corruption in these areas. Checks and balances have been developed within the AFP to meet these problems-the fact that an officer is in uniform or plain clothes is not relevant. The complaint and investigation structure established through the Complaints (AFP) Act 1981 with the involvement of the Commonwealth Ombudsman appears appropriate at this time. (Question No. 1162) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: Does the Government support recommendation 47 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking concerning the introduction of a system which would make plain clothes police responsible to the senior uniformed officer at a divisional police station; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: See my answer to Question 1161. (Question No. 1163) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: Does the Government support recommendation 49 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking concerning the secondment of uniformed branch personnel to the police force drug squads for short periods as a part of general practice; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: See my answer to Question 1161. (Question No. 1164) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) What consideration has the Government given to recommendation 50 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking concerning the introduction of special duty squads in metropolitan areas to investigate the full range of high corruption activities so that members of particular squads cannot guarantee persons involved in such practices immunity from prosecution. (2) Does the Government support the use of special duty squads for the purpose outlined above; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) See my answer to Question 1161. (Question No. 1211) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 12 June 1986: How many scientists and engineers are employed by the Department and its instrumentalities. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There are 58 persons employed in science-based categories within the Department and 27 within its instrumentalities. There are no engineers employed by the Department and 2 employed by its instrumentalities. (Question No. 1325) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: Has the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations' Department or any Statutory Body or Authority under the control of the Minister, made funds available to the Queensland Radio Station 4ZZZ; if so- (a) what was the nature of this funding; (b) under which scheme was money provided; (c) who administered and supervised this funding; (d) what was the purpose of this funding; (e) where the project objectives met; (f) why was the funding considered necessary; and (g) was the project considered a success. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes; as follows- (a), (b) Creative Broadcasting Ltd, which operates Community Radio 4ZZZ, received funds to conduct a project under the Community Employment Program (CEP); (c) as with all CEP projects, once the application had been approved, the appropriate State Government Department, in this case the Queensland Treasury Department, was responsible for administering payment of the grant and undertaking project monitoring activities; (d) funding was approved to enable the employment of three disadvantaged unemployed people to organise the station's record library, supply information to the public, and improve the station's fundraising capability; (e), (g) the project's objectives were met to the extent that new work was able to be undertaken and the archiving, subscriber and promotional systems established by the CEP participants will be of long-term benefit to the station. From a CEP point of view the project was a success in that it provided work for three previously unemployed people for six months. Two of the three participants went on to obtain full-time employment related to the skills acquired on the project. The third participant undertook full-time studies after finishing work on the project; and (f) funding was approved as the application satisfied all CEP guidelines and provided work experience for members of the CEP target group on a project of community benefit. (Question No. 1372) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Were the members of the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Section Committee appointed by you on 25 May 1984 for a 3 year period. (2) Was the function of the Committee ``to select persons other than the Chairman, Managing Director and Government Representative (8 persons in total in each case) to be nominated to the Minister for Primary Industry for appointment by him as members of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation.'' (3) Did the Committee furnish to you by 31 May 1985 `` . . . the names of eight persons considered by the Committee to be suitable for appointment as members of the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation.'' (4) Were not all the nominations to the Corporation appointed by you for a two or three year period beginning on 2 July 1985. (5) Why has the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Selection Committee continued to exist. (6) What public funds have been expended by the Committee since 2 July 1985. (7) What would be the estimated expenditure of the Authority till 30 June 1987. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No, members of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee were appointed on 25 June 1984 for a 3 year period. (2) The original function of the Committee as established by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (AMLC) Selection Committee Act No. 59 of 1984 was to select persons to be nominated to the Minister for appointment as members of the AMLC, other than the Chairman, Managing Director and Government Representative. Following the enactment of the Australian Meat and Livestock legislation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act No. 13 of 1985 the Selection Committee was given the additional function of selecting persons for nomination to the Minister for appointment as members of the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation. (3) Yes (4) Yes (5) There is a need to have a selection mechanism in place to arrange for nominations when the fixed terms of Corporation members expire, or in the event of casual vacancies (resignation, death) arising. (6) Under section 37 of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act 1977 all costs and expenses of the Selection Committee, including remuneration and allowances of the Chairman, Acting Chairman, Committee members and deputies and staff and consultants to that Committee are met in the first instance by the AMLC. The AMLC is required to notify the AMLRDC as soon as possible of all costs and expenses specifically relating to AMLRDC selections and is reimbursed such monies. The AMLC is funded from industry livestock slaughter levies and livestock export charges and no public funds are involved. In the case of the AMLRDC the Government matches approved expenditure and therefore 50% of the costs relating to the selection of members for the AMLRDC are obtained from public monies with the remainder being industry funded. Since 2 July 1985 no expenditure has been incurred by the Selection Committee on behalf of the AMLRDC and consequently no public monies have been expended. (7) Expenditure of the Selection Committee (a) in 1983-84 was $68,027 none of which related to AMLRDC nominations (b) in 1984-85 was $67,013 of which $63,694 related to AMLRDC nominations (c) in 1985-86 was $38,914 none of which related to AMLRDC nominations (d) is estimated for 1986-87 at $75,000 of which some $35,000 could relate to AMLRDC nominations. Senator Walsh —On 28 May 1986, Senator Hill asked me a question without notice regarding the effects of the current industrial dispute at Broken Hill, on Broken Hill and Port Pirie. Senator Hill asked: I refer to the refusal of mine workers at Broken Hill to comply with an interim award handed down by Justice Fisher. Is the Government aware of the effect this industrial dispute will have not only on Broken Hill but also on Broken Hill Associated Smelters which employs some 1,480 workers in Port Pirie and which, of course, is reliant on ore from Broken Hill? What action will the Government take to ensure compliance with the award noting that it has condemned businessmen for advocating breaches of the law in recent days and that the Government subscribes to our highly centralised industrial relations system and the strict application of our rigid award system? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government has been monitoring the ongoing industrial situation at Broken Hill and is aware of the implications which any prolonged stoppage could have for the communities of Broken Hill and Port Pirie. It was the Government's concern over this matter which led to the meetings the Minister for Resources and Energy and myself had with unions and employers, on 30 May and 2 June this year respectively, to be briefed on developments. The Commonwealth has been involved in other meetings with the parties. On 21 July the parties to the dispute agreed to an interim settlement which resulted in a return to work at Broken Hill on 22 July. The outstanding safety and other issues relevant to the dispute have been the subject of an investigation by a Technical Committee chiefly representative of the New South Wales Department of Industrial Relations which, I understand, presented its findings to the parties on 22 September. The parties have since been studying the report and having discussions on its findings and I understand that recourse is available to the New South Wales Industrial Commission should aspects be incapable of resolution. With regard to the interim award handed down by Justice Fisher of the State Industrial Commission which the honourable senator has raised, I am advised that this award was rescinded by a Full Bench of that Commission on 25 July following the signing of a new agreement between the parties on 21 July. It should be emphasised that this dispute has principally been a matter for the New South Wales Government and the State Industrial Commission although the Commonwealth Government has remained available to assist in any appropriate way. Senator Walsh —On 10 October 1986 (Hansard, page 1192), Senator Watson asked me a question, without notice, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. His question concerned a proposal by the Australasian Meat Industry Employee's Union to export Merino rams and semen. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied me with the following additional information: The current guidelines covering the export of Merino rams and genetic material include provisions that Export of up to 300 Merino rams per year with a sale price of more than $1,000 will be permitted. All rams purchased for export to be sold at a designated export auction and declared for export at the fall of the hammer. Prior to being offered for possible export at an export sale, all rams must comply with standard animal health and fertility requirements; these requirements are set by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service of the Department of Primary Industry. Restricted Goods Export Permits (RGEP) to be issued at the time of export in accordance with the requirements of Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations. There is a total ban on the export of Merino ewes, semen and other genetic material - except for trade with New Zealand which is free of restrictions. A review is currently being undertaken into the export of Merino rams and genetic material. In addition to the above mentioned restrictions, all animals leaving Australia must be sent by an exporter licensed by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation and such exports are subject to the issue of a RGEP. As Minister for Primary Industry, I and my delegates are empowered to issue RGEP's. Any application not strictly satisfying the necessary requirements would be rejected.