Monday, 17 November 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate 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 33 citizens), Mason (from seven citizens) and Vigor (from 146 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia and (2) Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium 137 and caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 324 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 209 citizens) and Richardson (from 228 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 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature: (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Puplick (from 13 citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens shows that the citizens of the Northern Territory recognise- (i) that nuclear peace for the world will come through adequate, supervised disarmament of nuclear weapons; (ii) that arms limitation arrangements between the United States and the Soviet Union specifically provide for verification, and the general purpose of the facilities at Pine Gap contribute to this objective; (iii) among the functions performed are the provision of early warning by receiving from space satellites information about missile launches and the provision of information about the occurrences of nuclear explosions which assist in nuclear test ban monitoring, supports nuclear non-proliferation measures and contributes to global stability- and urge the Australian Government to give an unequivocal commitment to renew the lease on the joint defence facility for a further term of ten years when the present lease expires on 19 October 1987. by Senator Kilgariff (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the Superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 277 citizens) and Crichton-Browne (from 17 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 welfare of many employees and their families depends upon a healthy, expanding gold mining industry. That the success of many small businesses in gold mining towns also depends upon the continued profitability of gold mining and prospecting operations. That the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining and prospecting represents a threat to the profitability of these industries and therefore will 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 48 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'. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 17 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 dis-incentive 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 Macklin (from 21 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 Senator Short (from 952 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 Ethnic Schools Program which provides for a teaching of community languages is vital to the sense of identity of all ethnic groups in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to continue funding the Ethnic Schools Program at a level which will fulfil the needs of the ethnic communities in this important area. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 77 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully brings to your attention: That in light of the importance of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases for biological, geographical, cultural and recreational purposes- the Commonwealth adheres to its policy of extending Kakadu National Park as outlined in the Governor-General's opening speech to Parliament on February 25, 1985 and immediately acts to declare the entire areas as Stage III of Kakadu National Park; the Government recognise the extreme importance of the Coronation Hill and Big Sunday sites complex and traditional affiliation of Aboriginal people to the area by ensuring that the area is made available for claim by traditional Aboriginal owners; no mining is permitted in Stage III of Kakadu and that existing mining leases be disallowed. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 74 citizens). Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I present the following petition, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form and does not contain a prayer at the end thereof, from 2,981 citizens who oppose the amalgamation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service: We the undersigned strongly oppose the merger of SBS (radio and television) with the ABC. We believe the financial reasons for the decision to merge are ill conceived, as evidenced by the Report of the Government's own Connor Committee of Review. The Ethnic Communities of Australia cannot understand why the Government proposes this merger without any consultation with the communities most severely affected. The Government must be aware that Ethnic Communities and other Anglo-Celtic Australians will not stand by and watch multi-culturalism in this country being reduced to tokenism. The amalgamation of SBS and the ABC constitutes the end of autonomous ethnic broadcasting in Australia. Petitions received. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) confirms its support for the Kangaroo Management Program conducted by the Australian Government in conjunction with all State Government management programs; (b) recognises the program as the most humane method of containing kangaroo numbers to a level that will allow the pastoral and grazing industries to function and ensure the continuation, protection and survival of various species of kangaroos; (c) calls on the manufacturers of Nike, Puma, Adidas and Mitre sports shoes, among others, to investigate the scientifically managed schemes controlled by the Australian and State Governments before ceasing the manufacture of running shoes from kangaroo leather; (d) calls on world sporting champion runner, Sebastian Coe, and Arsenal striker Charlie Nicholas, and other sporting champions to reject untruthful claims by Greenpeace and Fund for Animals condemning the Kangaroo Management Programs; (e) rejects the emotional and untrue allegations made by animal welfare groups who are using the Kangaroo Management Program to promote their organisations and their officials' life styles with disregard for facts and expert scientific evidence; and (f) warns the international community that if the Government management programs are sabotaged by the actions of these irresponsible animal welfare groups, less humane methods of management will occur to contain the kangaroo population at a level that will allow graziers and farmers to exist. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That unless otherwise ordered- (1) Government Business take precedence of General Business for the remainder of the Budget sittings. (2) The hours of sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 19 November 1986, and Thursday, 20 November 1986, be varied, as follows- (a) Wednesday, 19 November 1986- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (b) Thursday, 20 November 1986- 10 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (3) The Senate, at its rising on Thursday, 20 November 1986, adjourn till Tuesday, 25 November 1986, at 2 p.m. 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, following the October 1986 worst-ever deficit of $1.7 billion, the balance of payments current account deficit for the first four months of the 1986-87 financial year of $6 billion is mainly due to a huge rise in Australia's interest bill on overseas borrowings, which is now close to $1 billion a month; (b) further notes that every monthly deficit increase (averaging $1.5 billion a month in 1986, or almost $40,000 a minute) also increases the debt on which interest must be paid, thereby worsening our deficit even further, particularly while the Federal Government maintains its policy of record high interest rates aimed at holding up the value of the Australian dollar; (c) recognises that foreign investors have welcomed the last few disastrous monthly current account deficits because they ensure that the Government must maintain its high interest rate policy, which provides these investors with the highest and safest return in the world, for so long as the Reserve Bank provides a floor under the Australian dollar at US60 cents; (d) warns the Government that the present strength of the Australian dollar is no indication of foreign confidence in our economic future and, on the contrary, is despite a general expectation that Australia is moving into a recession. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Quarantine (Animals) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 283 and made under the Quarantine Act 1908, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Committee is corresponding with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) concerning the drafting of a provision which appears only partially to achieve the Minister's objective in removing a particular discretionary exemption. The regulations appear to repeal a right of review but still leave in existence the substantive discretion to which that right related. The Committee has written to the Minister. Today is the last day on which I can give a protective notice of motion to safeguard the Committee's position in scrutinising this matter. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate Notices of Motion Nos 1, 2, 3 and 5, standing in my name for the next day of sitting, for the disallowance of the Futures Industry Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 150, the Sex Discrimination (Operation of Legislation) (No. 1) Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 191, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 206 and the Apple and Pear (Conditions of Export) Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 219. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Committee has been considering delegated legislation relating to the use by officials of photographic identity cards; the need for a sunset clause to allow for the possible future application of the Sex Discrimination Act to certain decisions that would otherwise be permanently exempted from that Act; whether the use of the name and emblem `Worksafe Australia' affects the property rights of any other pre-existing user of that name; and questions concerning avenues of appeal against decisions of a statutory body. The Committee's concerns about all these matters have been met by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). The Committee thanks them for their willingness to explain matters to the Committee and for their undertakings to make important amendments to delegated legislation to protect the rights of individuals. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the Committee's scrutiny of these matters. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Sex Discrimination (Operation of Legislation) (No. 1) Regulations (S.R. 1986 No. 191) The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 refers to certain other Acts, to decisions under which the sex discrimination provisions would not apply, either permanently in some cases, or for 2 years in others. The Act also provides that the Regulations can extend that 2 year exemption. These Regulations extended the 2 year exemption in respect of certain Commonwealth Acts and Territory legislation in such a way as to exempt permanently decisions under that legislation from the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act. In correspondence, the Attorney-General explained why these permanent exemptions were necessary: in regard to certain Defence and National Service legislation: the Government's policy is that women not undertake combat related duties nor be subject to national service; and the cost is high ($4.5 million per annum) of extending to widowers certain benefits available to widows; in relation to the Marriage Act 1961 and the lack of uniformity in the marriage age: the apparent community preference for an increase to the higher male level of the age at which females may marry could disadvantage females; therefore the status quo has been maintained; in regard to the National Health Act: the need to preserve consistency between these provisions and those in the Social Security Act regarding the different ages (65 for males and 60 for females) at which males and females become entitled to certain pensions; and the 9 month waiting period before a female contributor to a health insurance scheme becomes eligible for hospital benefits for an obstetric condition is considered justified to protect the economic viability of the health insurance schemes; in relation to the Student Assistance Act and provisions which discriminate on the grounds of sex and marital status regarding eligibility for assistance: the cost ($350 million per annum) of extending independent status to all students; in relation to the War Gratuity Act and the fact that (i) de facto spouses must satisfy a test of dependency which legal spouses need not, and (ii) widows obtain certain advantages over widowers: extensive cost would arise if the sex discrimination was removed; the nature of the payments is such that in time they will naturally cease; in relation to the Adoption of Children Ordinance: male or female adopters must be over different ages before they may adopt (18 and 16 years of age); in relation to Registration of Births-discrimination as between single and married fathers when registering a birth (the mother's consent is required for the former); and in relation to divorce, family, and criminal law on Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Norfolk Island-various provisions including some which are the subject of discussions with the Muslim community. The Attorney-General told the Committee that in respect of many of the foregoing matters they were the subject of some ongoing review or would be reviewed in the near future. The Committee considered that a number of the permanent exemptions involved issues of some moment and potential controversy; further, the objects of the Sex Discrimination Act should not be seen to be unduly weakened by delegated legislation at a time when complex issues, crucial to the ideals of sex equality, were still under review. The Committee asked the Attorney-General to substitute a 2 year sun-set clause for permanent exemptions. Thus for a further 2 years the matters referred to above would continue to be exempted from the requirements of the Sex Discrimination Act but during that time the reviews and inquiries mentioned above could continue in a purposive way, possibly leading to a different approach to some of the issues in 2 years time. After giving the matter careful consideration the Attorney-General agreed to the Committee's request and undertook to make an amendment subjecting the exemption regulations to a 2 year sun-set clause. Futures Industry Regulations (Amendment) (S.R. 1986 No. 150) The Futures Act 1986 provides that an inspector can require the production of certain books of account, etc., on producing such evidence of authority as is prescribed. The Regulations prescribed ``a document that is issued by the Commission . . . that states that the person may require the production of books'', etc. The Committee considered that, in the interests of privacy and to deter impostors, some means of official photographic identification should be produced before the person should be required to give someone access to confidential commercial documents. Also, the Committee queried the subjective nature of the drafting in service of documents provisions (service on a person who is `apparently' an appropriate recipient, rather than on a person who `is or is reasonably believed to be' such a person). The Attorney-General undertook to raise these matters with his colleagues of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Regulations (S.R. 1986 No. 206) These Regulations provided that the Commission could use the name `Worksafe Australia' and an associated emblem. Other persons were prohibited from using these, or names and signs resembling them. The Committee wished to establish that no other persons had pre-existing compensible proprietary rights to use these names, because the Regulations did not provide for such compensation. By contrast, the Australian National Airlines Regulations (S.R. 1986 No. 201), regarding the names `Australian Airlines' and `Australian Cargo', expressly protected the rights of any prior users of the names, and provided for compensation on just terms for any `acquisition of property' in the right to use the names. The Minister for employment and Industrial Relations explained that searches had revealed that neither the name `Worksafe Australia' nor any similar name nor the logo had been registered as a business name or symbol. The name has since been registered in the name of the Commission. In the Minister's view therefore, there was no compensible acquisition of property from any person and, in the light of advice, he did not believe that the Australian National Airlines Regulations were a model which needed to be followed in this case. Apple and Pear (Conditions of Export) Regulations (Amendment) (S.R. 1986 No. 219) The regulations enabled the Apple and Pear Corporation to charge licence fees for services rendered in reviewing export performances. However, the Regulations did not provide that such periodic reviews could be undertaken and there was therefore, some question as to the legality of the fees. The Minister for Primary Industry agreed to amend the Regulations to provide expressly for the review each calendar year of licencees' export performance. The Minister also agreed that he would have no objection to making available by the AAT the exercise of the Corporation's discretion relating to the duration of an export licence. There were however, fundamental policy reasons for not providing administrative review of Corporation decisions to specify the ports and from which a licencee would be authorised to export, or to approve of importers at the export destination. Senator COONEY —I think it is appropriate that for the public record the Committee's correspondence be tabled and I seek leave to table those documents. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —I table the documents. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce-annual report 1985-86-pursuant to Sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 2. High Court of Australia-annual report 1985-86-pursuant to Section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979. 3. Commonwealth Ombudsman and Defence Force Ombudsman-annual reports 1985-86-pursuant to Section 19 of the Ombudsman Act 1976. 4. Commonwealth Grants Commission-annual report 1985-86-pursuant to Section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973. 5. United Nations General Assembly-fortieth session 1985-report of the Australian Delegation. 6. National Advisory Authority on computer security-text of a statement by the Minister for Defence. 7. Medicare Benefits Review Committee-second report-June 1986. 8. Australia's response to aids-report. 9. Looking Forward to Better Health-volumes two and three-Better Health Commission Report. 10. Amending agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance to South Australia for urban and regional development-pursuant to Section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 and Sections 15 of the Growth Centres (Financial Assistance) Act 1973 and Land Commissions (Financial Assistance) Act 1973. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, left yesterday on official duty in Japan. He will return on 21 November. In his absence the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hurford, is the Acting Treasurer. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, left on 15 November for France and China and the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, is Acting Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations until Mr Willis returns on 4 December. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer the Minister to the survey by the National Australia Bank Ltd and the Australian Chamber of Commerce which reports higher costs and a significant fall in profitability for the tertiary sector of the economy in the September quarter. Does the Minister share the concern of Mr Brian Hamley of the National Australia Bank, who described as `disturbing' the fact that 41 per cent of respondents expected a decrease in capital expenditure? Noting that the survey found that the level of demand was the main factor affecting capital investment plans, does the Minister agree that the current high interest rates regime is a major factor in suppressing demand, as well as being a factor operating on investment plans in its own right? How long can interest rates remain at present levels without causing long term damage to the economy? What action, if any, does the Government propose to take to ease interest rates? Senator BUTTON —Of course I share Mr Hamley's concern. The Government has made it quite clear for some time that because of the changed trading conditions in which we find ourselves there will be slower economic growth in 1986-87 than there was in 1985-86, and that that is appropriate. There have been no developments which change that view. The survey shows that respondents are not anticipating-this was a part of the survey which Senator Chaney did not advert to-any major downturn in the December quarter. It is, of course, true that planned capital expenditure is low, but this is consistent with the forecasts in the Budget. Other surveys show private sector forecasts for 1986-87 are not significantly weaker than the Budget forecasts, and those forecasts, of course, represent the professional judgment of officers of the Department of the Treasury. With regard to the question of the current interest rates regime, Senator Chaney will well know that I am not in the business of predicting interest rate movements, and I can add nothing to what I have said on previous occasions. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I understand the Minister's reluctance to predict interest rates, but, as the Government has been actively involved in policies which affect interest rates, I ask: Does the Government have in mind taking any action which would ease the pressure on interest rates? I do not ask the Minister to predict the precise movements, but are Government policy settings which do affect interest rates going to be changed to ease the pressure in that area? Senator BUTTON —The answer to that question is: When the Government deems that to be appropriate. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It relates to the current problems at the Australian War Memorial. Several newspapers have reported comments by the Director that the matters between him and the Minister are essentially trivial and technical by nature. Could the Minister inform the Senate whether these matters are indeed trivial? Senator GIETZELT —A number of unauthorised Press statements have been made by the Director in contradiction to a request by the Australian War Memorial Council that he not issue any Press statements. He has asserted that the matters in dispute are both trivial and technical. That does not accord with the facts. In fact, four separate reports have been prepared during this year. The first one was commissioned by the Director himself and is known as the Arthur Young report. It was a badly flawed document. It cost some $60,000 and it clearly shows that it did not understand the procedures, the role and the powers of the Council. However, the report did find serious deficiencies in the administration of the Australian War Memorial, as did the Auditor-General's report, the O'Connor report and the Ken Jones report. All those reports were prepared independent of government and all were designed to establish whether the Council of the War Memorial and its Director were operating in accordance with proper administrative functions. I do not think anyone could dismiss those reports as trivial or technical and not of some substantive nature. As I have already tabled the other three reports, I now table the Arthur Young report so that the Senate and the public at large can see whether there are reasons to believe that the matters require the Government's attention. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I again refer the Minister to the minute from a member of his staff advising that the Minister wanted a ceremony arranged at the Australian War Memorial to mark the proclamation of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Does the Minister accept the finding of the Jones inquiry that `this would suggest that even if the Minister did not personally direct that the function be held at the AWM, the advice emanating from his office certainly indicated that this was his wish'? Does the Minister also accept that the director of public relations in his own Department confirmed `the decision to hold the function at the AWM was not taken by the Department, but by the Minister's Office'? If the Minister does not dispute these comments, why does he continue to claim, as he did in the Senate on 29 May and again last Friday, that the organisation of the function was not at ministerial direction? Is he saying that he does not take responsibility for the actions of his staff? Senator GIETZELT —It is obvious that Senator Lewis does not understand the difference between `request' and `direction', although he is a solicitor, a legally trained person. As I indicated to him on the last occasion he asked me a somewhat similar question, the matter of determining where the ceremony for the proclamation of the Veterans' Entitlements Act would take place was a matter for the Department. Having made that decision, the question of examining who was to be invited and in what form the ceremony would take naturally was one undertaken in consultation between my personal staff and the Department as well as with officers of the Australian War Memorial. Never at any stage did I direct that the ceremony take place at the Australian War Memorial. It was not until we had supplied our files to Mr Jones that a letter was discovered on file. Air Vice-Marshal Flemming and others associated with the Australian War Memorial were not aware of it. We made it freely available to Mr Jones. On the basis of that letter he drew a prima facie conclusion that my office was aware of the fact that there was to be a function at the Australian War Memorial for the proclamation ceremony. If all the Opposition has to say in respect of the total maladministration of the Australian War Memorial is that that was done at my direction, it is failing in its duty as an opposition. Senator BLACK —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry seen the September 1986 edition of the newsletter of the Livestock and Grain Producers Association entitled `The Primary Report'? What does it say about the proportion of farms which are vulnerable to bankruptcy and what are the key factors causing that vulnerability? Senator WALSH —I have seen the issue of the publication in question. I am very pleased that the official report of the LGPA has put the magnitude of the farm problem in better and more accurate perspective than it is normally put. To demonstrate that I would like to read a few extracts from the report. It states: It should be remembered that close to 30 per cent of farmers have no debt and it is likely that these farmers will actually have benefited from the nation's high interest rate environment. It goes on to say in later pages: The implications of a fall in land prices for the rest of the farm community may not be as severe as first thought. The average farm value in Australia is around $720,000, and with debts averaging $80,000 per farm, the average equity ratio is 89 per cent. I repeat: The average equity ratio is 89 per cent. The report goes on to say: Suppose land prices fall by 20 per cent and debts increase by 20 per cent overall. This would mean a drop in average farm value to $576,000 and a rise in average debt to $96,000. But the resultant equity ratio would still be high at 83 per cent, indicating the resilience of farm sector balance sheets to major swings in return. I have not had those figures verified by Government sources but they seem to approximate official Government estimates of the farm equity situation. As I said earlier, I am delighted to see a farm organisation, if not putting the facts absolutely correctly, making an accurate assessment of the facts and putting the problem in its proper perspective. The report goes on to say: Some farmers may complain about the conservative attitudes of bankers in the valuation and approval of rural loans, but it would seem that this conservativeness has been of help for the sector as a whole in the present crisis. A bit of conservatism in the valuations and land prices would have been of considerable help to the minority of farmers who are in severe financial difficulties today. Almost without exception, the reason that people in that small minority are either insolvent or approaching insolvency is that within the last few years they have paid far too much for land. The reason they paid far too much for land was attributable principally to two factors: Firstly, the availability of soft loans, soft in terms of borrowing conditions, largely from the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd following its establishment in 1979; and, secondly, the expectation of untaxed capital gains. In other words, had there always been a decent capital gains tax in operation in Australia, as there now is in spite of the efforts of the Opposition, a very high proportion of that minority of farmers who are presently faced with insolvency would not be in the trouble they are now in. Encouraged by this Opposition to believe that they could go on harvesting capital gains untaxed forever, among things, led them to bid up the price of farm land to excessive and unsustainable levels and is the direct cause of their present financial problems. Senator VIGOR —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Is the Government supporting the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission that no assistance be given to citrus growers except for helping them to get out of business? What future does the Minister envisage for this industry in the light of the fact that growers' incomes have dropped dramatically in the last year due to massive releases of frozen orange juice concentrate by Brazil on to the world market and since the Government is lowering tariffs and imposing a new 20 per cent sales tax on fruit juice? Does the Government plan a similar fate for all other primary, mining and manufacturing industries when they are similarly affected by world trade wars and the protectionist policies of major world trading powers? What is the relative cost of preserving our capital investment in the citrus industry compared with the cost of unemployment, the future effect on our balance of payments and our total dependence on imports? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney pointed out by way of interjection that this is a very good question. It is also a very large question. I am flattered that Senator Vigor believes that I would have the wisdom or the patience to answer it in any detail. First, the question clearly arises from the fact that there has been an IAC report on the citrus industry. That report was received by the Government on 16 October and publicly released on 5 November. The fact that an IAC report on a particular industry has been released does not mean that the Government has taken any decision on that report. The IAC is a recommendatory body. It makes recommendations to the Government on the levels of assistance that should apply to particular industries. It does not make Government decisions. I am also asked what future the Government sees for the industry. That is a very long part of the question, but I inform Senator Vigor that today the Australian Customs Service made a preliminary finding on the dumping from Brazil of citrus extract. Provisional measures will operate from tomorrow to protect the industry against dumping. I am also asked what fate is planned for other industries. I make the point that the Government is aiming to assist the long term export and development potential of Australian industry generally. If Senator Vigor listened when we had debates on these issues he might recognise what the Government has been doing for the medium to long term future of export industries. I am also asked about the relative cost of preserving capital investment in the citrus industry. I am not able to answer that in precise terms, but the Government does not intend to allow the industry to collapse. As with other industries, we aim to assist its growth potential in its more competitive areas. Senator CHILDS —Has the Minister for Education seen the editorial in the Canberra Times of Wednesday, 12 November titled `Nation Lags in Science' in which the editorial makes an assessment of the need for more skilled labour, especially scientists, if Australia is to strengthen its manufacturing sector? Does the Minister agree that our education systems have a major role to play in encouraging more people to opt for science? The editorial also suggests that something ought to be done to make science an important part of the school curriculum and that girls should be given more encouragement to undertake science courses. What initiatives are planned to achieve those goals? Senator RYAN —I certainly agree with the points made in the Canberra Times editorial, as indeed I agreed with a similar statement made by the deans of science faculties a couple of weeks ago. When I spoke to that same group over a year ago I think similar points were raised. The Government recognises that there is a shortfall in scientific knowledge and skills in our community and our economy is the poorer for it. The school system is the obvious place to start in correcting this deficiency. We have been working on this for over three years now and there are a number of major initiatives which should help to bring more students into the science area, skill them and keep them there for their working lives. Of course one of the major shortcomings has been that girls, consciously or unconsciously, have been channelled away from the science subjects in their secondary years. As a result, their participation in higher education science courses is very much lower than it ought to be and their participation in the scientific community is correspondingly lower. We have sponsored a number of projects aimed at raising girls' consciousness of the need to study science and the vocational attractions of studying science. For example, my colleague Barry Jones and I launched a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation project for girls in science in which successful women scientists have taken time to go into schools to talk to girls about their careers, what skills they need, what satisfactions they get from science and so forth. I have heard very favourable comment on that project. In a major sense we are going to tackle the question of girls and science through our national strategy for the education of girls. This national initiative was agreed by all State Education Ministers except the Queensland Minister at the last meeting of the Education Ministers Council and it has since been endorsed by the major non-government systems. One of its main thrusts will be to use a number of strategies to get more girls participating in science throughout their education but particularly in the secondary years and to be oriented towards further science courses after they leave school. As to the general capacity of our students to be scientifically literate, we are addressing that problem by developing a project we are calling a science for all project carried out by the Schools Commission and the Curriculum Development Council. It will aim to get all school children scientifically literate and will be an important starting point to raising the status and impact of science in schools. As well as our efforts in the school level, of course we are doing many things to improve the number of science graduates, such as giving priority through the allocation of new student places in universities and colleges to science and technology courses. The Government is very well aware of the problems raised in the Canberra Times editorial. We are taking action to combat these problems and we hope that we will have the co-operation of the education community and the wider business community in our efforts. Senator REID —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to his answer to me last Friday. He said in relation to his tabling the previous day of the statutory declarations by officers of the Australian War Memorial: I did not endorse their response, and I do not resile from my responsibilities in that respect. The Minister will recall that when he tabled the declarations on Thursday he described the officers concerned as: . . . people who, in my view, are innocent in respect of any of the problems that exist in the Australian War Memorial. Does the Minister seriously suggest that these words do not amount to endorsement of the actions of those officers? How can the Minister possibly justify attacking the Director of the War Memorial while refusing to investigate allegations concerning other officers at the War Memorial and accepting their version of events very much linked to his own criticism of the Director? Senator GIETZELT —The issue that Senator Reid raises arises from a misconception about the documents which I tabled in the Senate last week. When the allegations were made in the House of Representatives in an adjournment debate I checked with some of the officers concerned, who denied any wrong-doing, and I made the statement accordingly. I also suggested to them that they should put their responses in writing and subsequently I tabled in the Senate a copy of the statutory declarations from two of the three persons who were in Australia at the time. Having done that I said in answer to a subsequent question that I could not and did not endorse all that was in the documents. I do not intend to endorse what is in the documents and it is not my responsibility to deal with pages and pages of responses from any member of the Public Service. That responsibility rests not with the Minister but with the Council of the Australian War Memorial, which is charged with the administration of the Australian War Memorial. That matter is already on the Council's agenda. When it has resolved the current difficulties I am sure that, if there is any substance in the allegations made by Mr Everingham on that occasion and which were repeated on Friday afternoon, that will be a matter for the Council to determine. I am satisfied about the integrity of the officers concerned and I indicated that in my earlier response. It is my responsibility, however, in respect of the Director, to draw what I consider to be matters affecting the general administration of the War Memorial to the attention of the Australian War Memorial Council. The Council has had the matter on its agenda on numerous occasions and is meeting again this afternoon in the hope of resolving the difficulties. That is the correct responsibility of the Council and the powers of the Minister in these matters are very limited as a direct result of the passage by the Parliament of the Australian War Memorial Act 1980. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of the disagreement in the community over the decision by the Government to provide clean needles to intravenous drug users? Can the Minister elaborate on the reasons behind the Government's decision? Can he make clear that the savings that will result by the introduction of this preventative measure, both in terms of dollar costs and reduced numbers of people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome or hepatitis, for example, far outweigh the cost of the needles, and that the measure is not an encouragement or promotion of drug use or abuse? Senator GRIMES —I am aware of the controversy which arose from the statements by Dr Blewett in a television program and elsewhere that there should be a greater availability of clean needles and syringes for intravenous drug users. This courageous recommendation was backed strongly by participants at the Second National AIDS Conference in Sydney a fortnight ago. I think it is important to remember that the evidence suggests that an effective vaccine or treatment for AIDS is some considerable way away. Every attempt has been made here and overseas to develop such a vaccine. In the meantime we have to assume that a vaccine is a long way away and every attempt should be made to ensure that our efforts to prevent the spread of this disease are as effective as possible. The spread of AIDS and hepatitis B via drug users who rely on the multiple use of dirty needles and syringes is well documented. In fact, in the New York area in the United States of America it is believed that, of the 40 per cent of people presenting with AIDS, almost 50 per cent have been intravenous drug users, and this does not include the number of homosexuals who are also IV users, which would expand that figure considerably. The spread of AIDS via IV drug abuse and via the IV drug using population in Australia is likely to lead to a second and more rapid phase of the AIDS epidemic in Australia, as has happened in other countries. Whether we like to admit it or not, IV drugs use is not confined to one particular class in our society or to one sex group in our country. The rapid spread of the virus through the majority of IV drug users, further spread through sexual contact and, even worse, further spread through the large numbers of children born to this group of people, will assist the rapid dissemination of the disease through the community. We do know that the system of exchanging new needles and syringes for old ones was introduced in the Netherlands in 1984 and, two years later, the Netherlands has one of the lowest rates of AIDS amongst intravenous drug users of any country in Europe, despite its large homosexual population. While the current rate of infection amongst intravenous drug users in Australia is low, except in South Australia where some 24 per cent of people found to have AIDS were IV drug users, it is important to face up to the fact that an explosive risk is represented to the community through this. State health authorities have been approached by the head of the AIDS task force on the need to develop strategies to enhance availability of needles and to seek to educate intravenous drug users in Australia. The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia has adopted a policy recommending that pharmacists should be willing to sell needles and syringes to intravenous drug users in order to curb the spread of AIDS through needle sharing. I think it would be absolutely disastrous for this country or this Parliament to believe that drug use will be increased by the adoption of such measures. It is as silly as saying that advocating safe sex will lead to an increase in homosexual behaviour. What the Minister for Health has done is to take a practical and effective approach to a very serious problem. It is unfortunate that he may be condemned by some individuals in this area who believe that problems go away if we do not consider them. I think we should do everything we can to prevent AIDS becoming an even bigger problem than it is. One of those mechanisms is through the distribution of clean needles and the prevention of the multiple use of needles, as recommended by the Minister for Health. Senator KILGARIFF —My question is directed to the Minister for Veteran's Affairs. Is it a fact that solicitors for the Australian War Memorial Council advised the Council, which in turn advised the Jones Inquiry into the Australian War Memorial that the Director of the Memorial had the right to be present and to question witnesses who appeared before that Inquiry? Was the Director denied this right? Does the Minister agree that this amounts to a denial of the principles of natural justice to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming? Senator GIETZELT —In recent days I have seen a letter written by the solicitors for the Australian War Memorial Council in which they have made the suggestion in the words used by Senator Kilgariff. However, I advise the Senate that the terms of reference were drawn up by the Council of the Australian War Memorial and the conduct of the Inquiry was by Mr Jones. I was certainly informed and consulted about the final draft of the terms of reference and on every occasion, as the minutes of the Council meeting will show, I sought to insist that, when the original terms of reference were drawn up, they be designed to give Air Vice-Marshal Flemming natural justice. That was stressed, particularly by me, on the occasion on which the final terms of reference were agreed to and presented to Mr Jones. So any suggestion that either the Council or the Minister-or, for that matter, Mr Jones-in any way, shape or form sought to deny natural justice to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming is not feasible and is rejected outright. Senator KILGARIFF —I ask a supplementary question. If the Minister says that the Council, he, the Minister, and Mr Jones did not deny Air Vice-Marshal Flemming the right to appear as a witness before the Inquiry, is not this really a denial of the principle of natural justice? Did he not deny it? Senator GIETZELT —The conduct of the Inquiry was under the jurisdiction of Mr Jones, acting at the request of the Australian War Memorial Council. There is no substance to the suggestion that Mr Jones denied natural justice to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. Senator AULICH —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to the story of an interview this morning by Mike Carlton of 2GB with the temporary Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard? I ask whether there are any official figures to verify Mr Howard's claim that the Australia Card `won't put a glove on the cash economy, which is probably costing the exchequer about seven to eight billion dollars a year in lost tax revenue'. Senator WALSH —My attention has been drawn to the interview Mr Howard apparently had with Mike Carlton this morning. Indeed, I have a transcript of it here and I must say that there are some fascinating extracts in it. In regard to the question directly, the assertion that the Australia Card will not put a glove on the cash economy is false and it is false for this reason: Where a payment is being made in a false name to an individual by somebody who is claiming that payment as a deduction from his taxable income-naturally the payer would want to continue claiming against the payer's taxable income the wages payment which had been made-that will no longer be possible under the Australia Card. It will no longer be possible for the recipient of that wage or payment to receive it under a false name. At least to that extent the Australia Card will eliminate-- Senator Messner —How much is attributable to that? Senator WALSH —The honourable senator is the expert on it. I have been asking him for substantiation of the figures he put out two months ago. If the honourable senator can substantiate the wild guesses he put out two months ago, I would be very pleased to receive substantiation. Senator Michael Baume —You don't know. Senator WALSH —I do not even know the prevailing deficit of Patrick Partners. To the extent that the situation I have identified is part of the cash economy, the Australia Card will wipe it out. As to the rest of the claim that was made by Mr Howard, which is a variant of the claim made earlier by Senator Messner, I put this question: Even if that were true, what does the Opposition propose to do about it? The only thing the Opposition has proposed to do about it so far is to sabotage the Government's attempt, via the introduction of the Australia Card, to wipe out a substantial part of the tax evasion that proceeds in the black economy. However, I would welcome-as I invited Senator Messner to do a while ago-any degree of substantiation that is not too incestuous that the Opposition could present in regard to the magnitude of the claims it is making. I would welcome even more some constructive suggestions from the Opposition on how tax evasion, via the cash economy, could be attacked in ways other than the attack the Government proposed to launch through the Australia Card and which the Opposition, very predictably, is sabotaging. For at least the last decade this Liberal Party has been the friend and protector of tax evasion in Australia and it continues to be so. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Finance, follows the question he has just answered in which he gave an example of a transaction that might be caught by the Australia Card. Would it also be possible if the Australia Card were brought in for any person making payments using black money-that is, money which had not been declared for tax purposes and on which a tax deduction would not be claimed-to make that payment without regard to the Australia Card and for those payments, in a black economy of that sort, simply not to be touched? Senator WALSH —At no stage did I even suggest, let alone assert, that all tax evasion in the cash economy would be eliminated by the introduction of the Australia Card. I said that in those cases where the payer was claiming the deduction against the payer's taxable income, and under those circumstances very likely paying somebody who was using a false name for a bit of moonlighting, the Australia Card would eliminate that type of tax evasion within the cash economy. Senator Messner —You cannot tell us how much that is. Senator WALSH —I have no doubt that Senator Messner has friends who are much better informed on the question of tax evasion than I am. Indeed, I suspect that most of his friends would be very well informed on the question of tax evasion because they are at the work place-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to ignore interjections and respond to Senator Chaney. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. In the case identified by Senator Chaney-that is, where an individual is not claiming the payment as a deduction from the payer's taxable income, an example of which would be a householder having some work done, such as having a plumber fix up a toilet-it would be very much more difficult to trace. One could not have the same certainty that the Australia Card would eliminate tax evasion there. It will, however, have some deterrent effect because if the recipient of the payment-unless he wants to spend the money immediately, and even then there are ways in which conceivably he could be caught-ultimately deposits funds in a bank account under his own name instead of a false name, as has certainly happened in some instances in the past, there is a longer term possibility, if not a probability, that he will be caught in that way. I repeat the invitation to the Opposition: If the Opposition can make any useful suggestions as to how tax evasion within the cash economy may be dealt with in those instances where the payer is not claiming the payment as a deduction from the payer's taxable income, I would be very grateful to receive them, as I am sure would the Treasurer. Senator RICHARDSON —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to an article in the Australian on 15 October written by John Spiers concerning the maritime unions and the excellent result obtained by the Maritime Industry Development Committee regarding the agreement on sweeping measures to revitalise the Australian shipping industry. Can the Minister give the reason for this agreement, given the history of strikes and stoppages in past years? Has the Minister any comment to make on the approach adopted here compared with the approach adopted by the so-called New Right in its industrial relations policy? Senator GIETZELT —The perceptions that members of the general public have about the shipping industry have been characterised, I believe, by the belief that it has out of date work practices. To that extent the Minister for Transport has taken very energetic steps to see what can be done to improve the work practices in the shipping industry. The release of the Maritime Industry Development Committee report shows that those perceptions are out of date and that Australian shipping ought to be seen, as it now is, as developing both responsibly and valuably to the nation. The emphasis that the Minister has placed on this matter is one of co-operation between all sections of the industry-the unions, the ship owners and the Government. It is another example of the way in which matters which have been of concern in the past can be resolved. Negotiations have been conducted in a very constructive way over the past 12 months. The way in which the sea-going unions of Australia and the ship owners have approached this problem is a matter for some commen- dation. They have adopted an innovative approach which has resulted in considerable improvements. That has brought about an agreement to reduce the manning levels on new technologically advanced ships to a crew of 21 accompanied by improved trading. This will allow for greater flexibility for mariners to move through the ranks, to improve their efficiency and productivity on Australian ships and to develop our own shipping industry. This is tangible proof of the Government's approach of consultation rather than confrontation and of the way in which confrontation policies, as expressed by the loony Right, will not succeed in light of the positive approach which is taken by the Australian Government. Of course, the Hamer Bill, if adopted, would bring us back to the divisive period rather than the one of constructive co-operation which this Government has initiated, which is succeeding and which has led to a very much improved work environment on the Australian shipping front. Senator NEWMAN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and relates to the defence service home loans scheme and to the changes announced in the 1985 mini-Budget. Have the details which are to be included in tender requests yet been finalised? What will be the cost of implementing the scheme? When will it be implemented and in what form? Why was it not implemented as planned on 1 January 1986? Will the current $25,000 limit be increased and who will be eligible? Is the Minister aware of the great disquiet among the defence forces over the issue? Does he take responsibility for this matter? Government senators interjecting- THE PRESIDENT —Order! I pointed out on Friday that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs does have some difficulty in hearing and I would ask that he be given the opportunity of hearing Senator Newman's question. Senator NEWMAN —Is it true that the Minister is one of the Ministers to be reshuffled at Christmas? Senator GIETZELT —My answer to the very inane last part of the question is very short: As far as I am concerned there is to be no reshuffle. The other matters are the subject of Government consideration and it is our desire to approach this question in a way which will maintain the benefits for those beneficiaries, most of whom now have served in the peace time Services. In other words, the moving of the eligibility of veterans from war time to peace time from 1972 onwards has brought about a situation in which the majority of applicants for defence service home loans now comes from the peace time Services. Although it comes under my portfolio responsibility, the Government is anxious to take what steps it can, having regard to the budgetary restraints, to bring about a system that in no way will disadvantage the old eligible persons-that is, the veterans from past wars-and, with the co-operation possibly of the other financial institutions, will maintain the same degree of eligibility, I hope, in a better scheme than that existing at the moment. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Government received widespread support for condemning Peko-Wallsend Ltd for its action in sacking, at 30 minutes notice, the work force of its subsidiary company, Besco Batteries, in Sydney? Senator WALSH —I think the answer to the question essentially would have to be yes, the Government has received wide support on that issue and, if I may say so, some of it has come from quarters which, to me at least, are rather surprising, such as the editorial column of the Weekend Australian. It is particularly surprising when one looks at so much of the other content of that publication. These are extracts from what the Weekend Australian had in its editorial last weekend: One of the signs that something is going wrong has been the way in which the Liberal Party has been unable to shake off easily the Government's charges that the party is dominated by New Right thinking. But Peko's closing of Besco Batteries in Sydney at 30 minutes' notice to a work force with which it had no complaint should be condemned unequivocally. If a political party believes that a docile worker, with some length of service, against whom there is no complaint, should be sackable with 30 minutes' notice in what most reasonable people would consider an inhuman way, then just what sort of society is the Liberal Party trying to build? The Weekend Australian posed the question. I would not presume to answer the question, but I certainly would welcome it if Mr Howard would join the Australian newspaper and all the other people who have supported the Government in its criticism of Peko for that decision on the Besco action. But if Mr Howard will not complain about it, perhaps Mr Peacock will. Senator BROWNHILL —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the Australian Customs Service decision today-which the Minister has already referred to in answering an earlier question-that cash securities or documentary securities will be applied to imports of Brazilian frozen orange juice concentrate. In view of the recent Industries Assistance Commission finding that these imports are setting domestic prices and that the price landed in Australia has crashed from $US1,800 to $US800 a tonne this year, what will be the amount applied to the new Customs securities? As the countervailing tariff applied to the dumped Brazilian product by the United States of America authorities has been public knowledge for some weeks, why did today's statement fail to quantify the measures to be put in place in Australia? What will be the value of these securities? Senator BUTTON —I am not sure that in a finding of this kind Customs ever quantifies the amount, but I will have that looked into and will provide the honourable senator with an answer as soon as possible. Senator MAGUIRE —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has his attention been drawn to a recent article in the financial pages of the Sydney Morning Herald showing that Australian share markets hit a record 42 times during the last 10 months? Does the health of Australian share markets, as demonstrated by those 42 records, contradict claims by the Opposition about the impact of the capital gains tax and therefore tax reform in general? Does the large volume of share transactions-on the latest advice I have it is $6,900m this year compared with $3,500m last year-indicate that many shares previously exempt from the capital gains tax have changed hands and are therefore now subject to the tax, and that investors have caused that to happen voluntarily? Senator WALSH —To that part of the question which asks whether the activity in the share market in recent months contradicts claims being made by the Opposition that there would be a share lock-in, the answer is clearly yes. In particular, it ridicules the following claim by Senator Messner on 4 June: The long term effect of that- that is, the capital gains tax- is likely to be a stiffening up in the market-place-financial arthritis, if you like-with people hanging on to their assets in order to avoid paying a capital gains tax. Never mind whatever peculiar theory the Liberal Party happens to be following at any stage, the empirical evidence of what has actually happened since then makes absolute nonsense of that claim. However, this caveat should be lodged: I am not sure what the aggregate level of the share trading activity, that is, the value of sales, in the last almost five months is, but whatever that aggregate figure is it would inevitably contain some element of double counting or even multiple counting. There is no doubt that trading activity, not only in the aggregate levels but also in the numbers of shares-specific or identifiable shares-has been running at extremely high levels, making absolute nonsense of the claims that have been made by the Opposition. While I am on the subject, it is worth noting that there has been some decline in the share price index in the last few days-I am not sure what has happened today-from an extraordinarily high and record level reflecting a 30 per cent or 36 per cent increase, as I think it has been in the last 12 months. As Senator Maguire's question stated, the record has been broken 42 times this year. These things show that the capital gains tax will not affect healthy share trading but will help to curb speculative excesses of the type that have often happened in the past, that is, when the seemingly ineradicable inclination of some people to gamble on the stock exchange at prices in excess of any realistic long term market value is compounded by the expectation that the gains they make through those trading activities will be free of capital gains tax. Senator Michael Baume —Share traders always have to pay tax. Don't talk such rubbish. Senator WALSH —I am glad Senator Baume mentioned that. It is possible that under section 26 (a), I think it is, of the Income Tax Assessment Act somebody could be deemed to be a share trader by the Commissioner of Taxation and have to pay tax on his full nominal gains at the marginal income tax rate and would not know until the Commissioner made a declaration whether or not he was going to be classified as a share trader. Under the reformed regime this Government has introduced everybody knows from the beginning precisely where he stands. People will pay tax on any real gains from share trading whether or not the Commissioner exercises his arbitrary discretion to declare them as share traders. One thing which the application of the capital gains tax will do is reduce the highly undesirable compounding effect of the expectation of tax-free capital gains feeding back into further undesirable and unhealthy speculation in the share market. What has happened in the last few months has shown so clearly that everything the Opposition was saying about the application of the capital gains tax locking in the ownership of shares indefinitely is nonsense, just as almost everything else it says about economic questions is nonsense. Senator ARCHER —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to his comments reported in a recent edition of Computerworld Australia that if Australian businesses were to compete in the international market-place they would have to adopt imported world class technologies. How does the Minister reconcile these comments with the Government's decision to close the technology information office of the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office, one of the primary functions of which was to provide information about technological developments and thus facilitate the greater use of overseas technology by Australian firms? Senator BUTTON —The reference in the Computerworld Australia article to what I said was probably taken out of context. I would not have said in isolation that Australia had to depend significantly on imported world class technology. Having made that qualification, in my view that statement, in a proper context, is quite correct. Australia will have to depend to a significant degree on imported world class technology. With regard to the statement made about the Patent Office and the future of the information technology office in the Patent Office, that matter is peculiarly within the province of my colleague Mr Jones, the Minister for Science. I am not fully familiar with what decision has been made in respect of it. I will try to obtain an answer from Mr Jones and provide it as soon as possible. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of the very popular reception given by the public to the recent military displays by the Royal Australian Air Force during the 1986 Grand Prix, yesterday at Edinburgh in an open day which thousands of people attended, and by the Royal Australian Navy for its jubilee? Is the Minister aware that military displays are a unique public relations exercise on behalf of Australia's defence program? In view of the outstanding success of these military displays, will the Minister consider ongoing public displays by all the Australian defence forces to show the public where its taxes are spent and how unfortunate is the lack of confidence sometimes in Australia's defence systems? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Elstob has just blown my chance of setting a personal record-getting through an entire Question Time for the first time in 3 1/2 years without answering a question. The PRESIDENT —And ours, too. Senator GARETH EVANS —I was going to ask you, Mr President, whether it would be in order for me to wear an eyeshade and an earplug in future so I could really enjoy Question Time. Along with other colleagues who would have heard the roars of the FA18s during the Australian Grand Prix, I am aware of the splendid display of the FA18s and F111s on that occasion. I understand that the Minister for Defence approved participation by those aircraft following a request from the South Australian Premier, Mr Bannon. Honourable senators will be aware that the Royal Australian Air Force regularly performs at major public attractions and also at lesser shows and exhibitions. For example, the Macchi Roulettes, honourable senators will be pleased to know, are regular performers at shows throughout Australia. I am assured by the Minister for Defence that opportunities will continue to be taken within current funding levels to have the RAAF perform at major public attractions. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In response to a question from Senator Chaney last week Senator Button said that the horrendous balance of payments deficit for October of $1.735 billion was, I think his words were, on track. With a cumulative balance of payments deficit for the first four months of the fiscal year of around $6 billion, does this mean that the average monthly figures for the next eight months will be $1 billion or less? If not, has the Government amended its Budget estimate of $14.7 billion for a full year? If so, what is the revised estimate? Senator BUTTON —I do not think that I used the word `horrendous'. If the honourable senator wants to interpolate that in his question and attribute it to me, I do not think that is correct. I doubt very much whether I said `on track'. I think I said `within the Government's anticipations'-but that does not matter much. The Government expected a not good current account deficit figure in the latter quarter of this year-for September, October and so on. The figure was not entirely surprising. I am not sure of the mathematics. I do not know whether it means that in order to achieve the Budget estimate the current account deficit has to be $1 billion or less for the remaining eight months. I have not done that arithmetic but certainly the figures indicate that the sum will have to be considerably lower than the figures for the last two or three months. I will try to do that arithmetic for the honourable senator and give him an answer at a later time. Senator RYAN —On Friday Senator Vanstone asked a question relating to the effect, if any, of the Sex Discrimination Act on the Family Law Act. The Family Law Act has not been changed because it does not set the marriageable age. That is set by the Marriage Act 1961. The Marriage Act 1961 has not been changed because the operations of the provision relating to the marriageable age in the Marriage Act are specifically reserved by regulations pursuant to section 40 of the Sex Discrimination Act; that is, they grant an exemption from the provisions of the latter Act. Senator BUTTON —Earlier in Question Time today Senator Brownhill asked me whether I would quantify the protective measures against the dumping of Brazilian orange juice. I told him it was my view that it was not normal to quantify the figures. I have since been advised by the Australian Customs Service quantification of the amount of injury and the measures necessary to remove the injury is made available to all interested parties but is not available to the public generally. The PRESIDENT —On Monday, 10 November 1986, an editorial appeared in the Canberra Times referring to the Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1986 which I introduced into the Senate on 7 October last. The editorial contained a number of misconceptions concerning the Bill. Following discussion with me, the Clerk of the Senate responded to the matters contained in the editorial in a letter to the editor, delivered by hand to the offices of the Canberra Times the following morning. The letter was published in the newspaper on Saturday, 15 November, but with editorial changes which affected its substance in some respects. For the information of the Senate I table a copy of the editorial and a copy of the full text of the letter responding to it. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —by leave-Mr President, in view of the importance of the matter to which you have just alluded I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —by leave-Mr President, in view of the fact that a significant time has elapsed between the publication of the editorial misrepresenting the Bill and the publication of the letter and the editing of the letter as published, I think that the letter should be incorporated in Hansard and I seek leave for that to be done. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- AUSTRALIAN SENATE Canberra, A.C.T. 11 November 1986 The Editor, The Canberra Times Sir, Your editorial of 10 November 1986 on the Parliamentary Privileges Bill introduced by the President of the Senate is founded upon misconceptions. It conveys the impression that the Bill aims to change the law. In fact, the Bill aims to give expression to the law as it has been expounded in a number of judgments prior to the judgment of Mr Justice Hunt. It was the latter judgment which sought to change the law by repudiating and overturning the earlier judgments. There is no guarantee that the judgment of Hunt J. will be followed by other judges and other courts and, as the President pointed out in his second reading speech, two judges, including another judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, have already indicated their disagreement with Hunt J. and their preference for the existing interpretation. The editorial paints a picture of Parliament seeking ``to assert its rights to the detriment of an accused person''. As a matter of record the defence in the trials of the late Mr Justice Murphy submitted that the law of parliamentary privilege prevented the examination of the defendant on evidence given to parliamentary committees. This was in agreement with the submission made to the Court by the President in so far as it related to the defendant and was also rejected by Hunt J. By quoting the words of Hunt J. the editorial reinforces the misconception that the privilege of freedom of speech has, or was intended to have, some application to public or media comment and discussions. That this is a misinterpretation of the existing law was adequately demonstrated by the documents which were presented to the Senate by the President earlier this year. A perusal of those documents would have indicated to you that Hunt J. misinterpreted the existing law in a number of respects. In his judgment he stated that his conclusion might be otherwise where witnesses were under compulsion to testify and lacked the privilege from self-incrimination, thereby ignoring the facts that parliamentary witnesses are under compulsion, because of the nature of the powers of the Houses to compel evidence, and do lack the privilege from self-incrimination. The Bill, and the law as it exists, is designed to avoid the gross injustice of witnesses being compelled to answer questions, to give evidence of a kind not admissible in court proceedings and perhaps to incriminate themselves, and subsequently having their answers used against them, perhaps to convict them, in court. There are on the statute books many laws, establishing a variety of tribunals, which give them power to compel evidence, remove the privilege from self-incrimination of witnesses before them, but provide that evidence so given is not admissible in court proceedings, either against witnesses or generally. Are witnesses before the statutory tribunals to have a greater protection than those taking part in the proceedings of Parliament? A. R. CUMMING THOM Clerk of the Senate The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 17 November, from Senator Lewis: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs either to accept the finding of the Jones inquiry that there was no `misbehaviour' by the Director of the Australian War Memorial or to institute a full and open inquiry to be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice as recommended to the Council by its solicitors.' Yours sincerely AUSTIN LEWIS Senator for the State of Victoria Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.17) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs either to accept the finding of the Jones inquiry that there was no `misbehaviour' by the Director of the Australian War Memorial or to institute a full and open inquiry to be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice as recommended to the Council by its solicitors. Mr President, I would not have moved this motion but for the extraordinary ineptness of Senator Gietzelt, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in the administration of his portfolio as a result of which after four inquiries into the affairs of the Australian War Memorial the Government may now be facing a fifth and very expensive inquiry in order to overcome the problems. Of course, the solutions to the problems are all set out in the report of Mr K. N. Jones on his inquiry into the affairs of the Australian War Memorial. I say at the outset that Mr Jones is held in high regard by senators and members of the House of Representatives on both sides. The report certainly is first class and we make no criticism of it. We criticise only the Minister for failing to adopt the report. The report makes it quite clear that there is no ground upon which Mr Flemming might be dismissed. Mr Jones, being the excellent administrator that he was and is, has set out how the administration of the War Memorial could be altered in order to overcome the current problem. The Minister has failed to accept the advice of Mr Jones notwithstanding that he wanted the inquiry. By failing to accept the report of Mr Jones he has put everyone, in particular the Australian War Memorial Council and Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, into an impossible position. The Australian War Memorial is far too important to all Australians to become a political football. It belongs to every one of us and in particular to the memory of those who have not returned from war and to those service men and women who have returned from war. It is for this reason that the Parliament established a statutory council to administer the War Memorial. That Council was established to make sure that the interests of all Australians were fully protected. Of course, the government of the day has an interest in the funding of the War Memorial and therefore an interest in its management efficiency and financial responsibility, but the Parliament has delegated management to the Council and that requires the Minister to distance himself from the day to day affairs of the Memorial. Therein lies the first problem: This Minister has not so distanced himself. Senator Gietzelt will probably protest that he has not tried to interfere in the day to day administration of the War Memorial, but the truth of the matter is that his personal staff have been actively involving themselves in its affairs. A Minister cannot so distinguish himself from his staff; they act in his name. Having an interfering Minister or his staff imposes an extraordinary dilemma on the Council of the War Memorial because it is constantly being told what the Minister wants done, which creates difficulties for it when it would like to do something which is not in accordance with what it believes are the Minister's wishes. This Minister has made it clear that he has no confidence in Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. Indeed, it seems to have become a personal vendetta. He has consistently refused to acknowledge the main conclusion of the Jones inquiry-that the Director was not guilty of misbehaviour. Senator Gietzelt and I have known each other for some 10 years. We have had conversations about all sorts of things at a committee level, and I say to him that I have been disappointed about his personal selective `quoting' in the chamber of the Jones report in relation to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. Even as late as Question Time today he smeared the Director by innuendo and selective reporting. There have always been difficulties at the Australian War Memorial but the truth of the matter is that this Director has been overcoming them. It seems that the Minister has now proposed to the Council that the solution is the retirement of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. Indeed, the Minister even obtained Cabinet's approval to the payout of $60,000 if the Director would resign. In these circumstances the soft option for the Council to offer Air Vice-Marshal Flemming early retirement and compensation must have appeared as an attractive solution to it, but Air Vice-Marshal Flemming does not want to retire in these circumstances, and understandably so. The problem is that the Minister keeps heaping coals on the fire in his public criticism of the Director. In a radio interview this morning the Minister admitted that his long term objective was that the Director resign. The criticism of the Director is unfair and unjust in that the Minister keeps highlighting the minor criticisms in the Jones report and never mentions the major conclusions or the praise of the report. Nor does he mention the proposed solutions. It is as if the Minister has not bothered to apply his mind to the proposed solutions in the Jones report. Mr Jones set out how the difficulties and problems could be overcome, but the only solution the Minister sees is that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming should resign because Mr Jones did not report that he should be dismissed. Air Vice-Marshal Flemming is, rightly so, jealous of his professional reputation. It has been acknowledged by many that when he took over as Director there were concerns about the War Memorial, particularly staff shortages. The 1984-85 annual report of the Council of the Australian War Memorial to the Minister indicated the inadequate staffing levels. Those problems have now been overcome. Even the Minister must acknowledge the vast improvements that have been made under the Director's administration, but all the Minister can think of doing is making nit picking criticisms. I give as an example the Minister's complaint that when Air Vice-Marshal Flemming decided that he ought to review the bank with which the Council was banking, he personally checked on the banks at their front offices instead of going in to see the managers. Let me say that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming is not the only sensible person to take that action because we all know that if a person goes in to see the manager of a bank which wants his custom, the manager will say all sorts of things about how the bank will look after him. The significant thing to do is to go to the front desk and the tellers and check on the sort of service one gets there. That is how one finds out whether the bank will be able to look after one. That is what Air Vice-Marshal Flemming did, but Senator Gietzelt saw reason to criticise him for doing that. It seems to me that the Minister has developed a personal vendetta against Air Vice- Marshal Flemming. I understand that some of the Memorial staff have complained about his administrative style. Indeed, that is the main criticism by Mr Jones-that he has not operated by the book. That, of course, is a heinous crime to the bureaucracy. But he has got things done-things that otherwise might still have been buried in a morass of paperwork. Again, the 1984-85 annual report tells us that, with the transfer of the War Memorial to the portfolio of Senator Gietzelt, new administrative and parliamentary liaison procedures were developed. I do not know what happened to those new administrative and parliamentary liaison procedures of which Senator Gietzelt was so proud, but it appears that these became clandestine through his personal staff, who developed channels of communication with War Memorial staff, that excluded the Director of the War Memorial. The Minister has not denied that these channels of information existed. I ask the Senate: What could be more destructive to morale and good administration than having channels of communication between the Minister and staff members that exclude the Director? Either the Minister knew about and condoned those channels of communication or, worse, he did not know what his staff was up to. Either way, the Minister, by his actions, has undermined the authority of the Director by allowing these channels of communications to exist and to continue. As a result, he is responsible for the current strife. Further, the Minister has refused in this chamber to accept his responsibility for the actions of his personal staff or his Department. As late as today, he has claimed to the Senate that directions from a member of his personal staff were not directions from him as the Minister. What absolute nonsense! Of course, we know that what really upset the Minister was this staff bulletin which, I might say, has written across the top of it, in what I believe to be Tim Fischer's handwriting, `Tim Fischer, MP'. Because that appeared on it, it was thought to be a leak to Tim Fischer, MP. Handwriting experts were even called in to find out who had written those words. The staff bulletin reads: On Thursday 22 May at 2.30 pm, as a result of a Ministerial direction, the Department will be holding a small function, with afternoon tea . . . to introduce the new Veterans' Entitlement Bill . . . We know what was the truth of the matter. The truth was that the Minister's office had indicated that there was a ministerial direction to have this function. But the Minister denies it because he says it was not done by him. In fact, it turned out to have been done by a member of his personal staff. Let me say also that the invitations which went out were issued in the name of the Minister of State for Veterans' Affairs, Senator the Hon. A. T. Gietzelt. The invitations to a small function did not go out in the name of the Department. Quite clearly, the Minister knew what was going on, but it was this staff bulletin that really created the great problems for the Minister. It does not appear to be a coincidence that, on 23 September this year, the Minister failed to reappoint the former South Australian Labor Premier and distinguished soldier, Des Corcoran, to a second term. That occurred only 24 hours before a crucial meeting of the Australian War Memorial Council that would decide the Director's future in the light of the O'Connor report. We have asked the Minister time and again why he refused to reappoint Mr Corcoran to a second term. Indeed, I think Senator Reid has placed a question on the Notice Paper, asking him to tell us why he would not reappoint Mr Corcoran. The Minister, of course, has not answered. At the time the Council was to consider the matter, Senator Gietzelt told Des Corcoran that he would not be reappointed to a second term. Until that stage everyone, including Des Corcoran, as I understand it, believed that he was to be reappointed to a second term. Senator Jessop —He was told half an hour before he caught the plane. Senator LEWIS —Half an hour before he caught the plane, my colleague Senator Jessop tells me, he was told that he would not get a second term. It was just at the time when the Council was considering this matter that Senator Gietzelt announced that he no longer had confidence in Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. Clearly, that public announcement was an attempt to influence what the War Memorial Council was doing. However, on the basis of the O'Connor report, the War Memorial Council did not take action against Air Vice-Marshal Flemming and so it became necessary, in Senator Gietzelt's mind, to have a further inquiry. We have now had the Jones inquiry. If the Minister had accepted the recommendation of Mr Jones this matter could have been over. But no, the Minister has not been prepared to accept the recommendation of that inquiry; he still wants to get rid of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. In the light of that, Air Vice-Marshal Flemming and his advisers have looked at certain aspects of the Jones inquiry and they have drawn attention to the fact that Mr Jones did not accept the advice of Freehill, Hollingdale and Page, who are the solicitors to the Australian War Memorial. In their letter dated 31 October 1986 to the solicitors for Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, they stated: . . . your client has the right, under the Terms of Reference as they stand, to be present in the circumstances mentioned and to question witnesses. Of course, in all the principles of natural justice we understand that that is a basic rule. Mr Jones, in his wisdom, decided that he would not conduct his inquiry that way. I am not being critical of Mr Jones for not conducting the inquiry that way but the important point is that if the Minister now wants to take some action, other than what Mr Jones recommended, he must clearly give Air Vice-Marshal Flemming the very rights that Freehill, Hollingdale and Page set out in their letter. There must be provision for the cross-examination of witnesses. Clearly, Air Vice-Marshal Flemming must have the opportunity to be present and, if possible, to be represented and there must be some application of the rules of evidence and, in particular, of giving evidence on oath. Air Vice-Marshal Flemming had requested that he be given the opportunity to be present when evidence was given to the Jones inquiry. He also requested that on these occasions he, or his legal representatives, be given the right to cross-examine witnesses and this right was denied. If the Minister is going to take the attitude which he is taking at the present moment, he must realise that there is a denial of natural justice. As I said, the actions of Senator Gietzelt have put everyone in an impossible position. He has put the War Memorial Council in an impossible position. It has a report which states that it has no right to dismiss Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, its Director. It has considered the War Memorial's problems with three previous reports and Mr Jones conducted a very detailed investigation, in effect clearing Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, although he set out in great detail, as the Minister has pointed out, a number of areas where matters need to be altered and changes need to be made. However, Mr Jones does not conclude that the Director has been guilty of misbehaviour in accordance with the legislation; so there is no right to dismiss Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. The Council is placed in an impossible position by the Minister saying: `If you cannot dismiss him, persuade him to resign'. It has put Air Vice-Marshal Flemming in an impossible position. How can he resign while the Minister keeps pointing out to all and sundry that he has, in the Minister's opinion, committed some acts indicating personal incompetence? Air Vice-Marshal Flemming will not accept those allegations. If he were to resign that would be some sort of concession or admission that in some way or other he was irresponsible in his behaviour as Director of the War Memorial. If the Minister had accepted the findings I have no doubt that the matter could have been resolved in the way Mr Jones recommended. But while the Minister keeps insisting publicly that the Director must resign we have an absolute dilemma leaving only one option. As I have pointed out in my motion-- Senator Withers —Resign. Senator LEWIS —My colleague Senator Withers points out that I have overlooked another alternative and that is that the Minister could resign. However, it may very well be that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will rectify that matter later this year. As far as Air Vice-Marshal Flemming is concerned, while the Minister maintains his present course only one option is open in the interest of natural justice and that is the expensive solution of a full and open inquiry conducted in accordance with the principles recommended to the Council by its solicitors. All of this would have been unnecessary except, as I said in my opening remarks, for the extraordinary ineptness of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in handling this affair. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.38) —I believe that I have acted with patience and propriety in dealing with the issue involving the proper administration of the Australian War Memorial. It is almost two years since the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) transferred the responsibility of the Australian War Memorial to my portfolio after the 1984 election. He did this because of his recognition of the special status of this cherished national institution. The Government recognised that it is not just another museum or gallery. It recognised and acknowledged that there were problems of inadequate resources and poor staff morale that needed particular attention. The reason the Prime Minister responded in this way was that it had been put to him by Sir William Keys, from the Returned Services League, that there was a need for specific attention to be given to this important national shrine. Since that time I have, I believe, taken what steps were available to me to examine the way in which the Australian War Memorial carries out those functions. Contrary to what Senator Lewis said, I have given the War Memorial additional staff and additional funds out of my portfolio and I was responsible for convincing the Government, in the tight financial restrictions of the Budget last year, that an additional $1.3m should be made available for the purchase or construction of a warehouse to meet very important deficiencies. The Prime Minister wrote to me in September 1985 drawing my attention to the concerns that had been expressed to him. Very soon after that there was a letter in the Canberra Times of 8 October 1985 from the Memorial's former senior curator of military technology, Mr Heaton, claiming that there had been considerable internal problems in the Memorial over the past 2 1/2 years-the precise time the Director had been in office-and that top management had allowed staff morale to fall to a critically low level resulting in a rapid loss of key staff. That day I received a minute from the Director regarding this letter. Incidentally, I believe that this is the only time, in the two years I have been Minister responsible for the Memorial, that the Director has given me unsolicited advice. In that minute he said that the Heaton letter was based on hearsay and misunderstanding, that all the key staff had left the Australian War Memorial for personal or career advancement reasons, that the Memorial's difficulties were due to factors beyond its control and had, in any case, been largely overcome. Therefore, I used the Director's reassurances in response to a question asked of me in the Senate on that day. The following day the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Tim Fischer, in the adjournment debate in the House of Representatives claimed: The Minister for Veterans' Affairs was simply wrong in his contention and advice to the Senate yesterday. He also stated: . . . his response smacks of a cover-up in the best Yes Minister style or, alternatively, a real failure to investigate the situation fully. Mr Fischer continued that his information indicated that Heaton's concerns were both relevant and accurate and concluded that I had an absolute responsibility to investigate comprehensively and then take corrective action. Therefore, it is quite preposterous and improper for the Opposition, in this hypocritical way, to suggest that the initiative that I have taken in response to that criticism by the shadow Minister represents some sort of vendetta against the Director. On the contrary; I have taken up the very issues that have been pressed upon me by the Opposition through its shadow Minister. Indeed, my first inquiry into the Memorial's administration was through a minute I sent to my departmental Secretary immediately after, and in direct response to, Mr Fischer's claims. I followed this up with a letter on 18 October last year to the Chairman of the Council which states: Under the administrative arrangements order I and the Minister with responsibility for administering the AWM Act which gives the Council responsibility for the operations of the Memorial and the Director the powers of a departmental Secretary. I should be grateful for the Council's advice on whether there are management and staff morale problems at the Memorial which need to be addressed and, if so, whether the Council would see value in instituting a suitable form of management review. After discussing the matter with the Department when I found that there were serious limitations in the power of the Minister, that letter which I addressed last year to Dame Beryl Beaurepaire was followed up earlier this year by a suggestion to the Council of the Australian War Memorial that a management review should be carried out in the terms of the letter. What happened? The Council, on the advice of the Director, decided not to take up that offer. Therefore, it is preposterous that it should be suggested seriously that somehow or other I have personally carried out a vendetta. This was the first occasion when the accuracy of the Director's advice to his Minister had been publicly called into question. I reiterate: It was called into question, not by me but by the Opposition through Mr Fischer. But this, of course was not the only occasion. There are at least five other examples of what I discovered to be inaccurate and misleading advice from the Director, each of these occasions being sufficiently serious to have the potential to cause me to mislead the Parliament and the Government. I will briefly run through each of these five occasions and give the Senate the gist of what Mr Jones had to say in his report on all these six questions. Before I do that, let me answer the claim made by Senator Lewis that I have been selective. The only report that he has referred to has been the Jones report. He very selectively quoted what Mr Jones said at paragraph 5.32 on page 62 of the report. Mr Jones said: I cannot conclude from this Inquiry that there exists misbehaviour by the Director in the terms of Section 24 (1) of the AWM Act as I understand that provision. So the Opposition hangs its case upon that view of an investigator, as though that is the start and finish of the matter. In fact, of course, under the Australian War Memorial Act the responsibility for determining misbehaviour rest with the Governor-General, not with the investigator and not with the Government. Let me go back to those issues that I said were subject matters that caused me concern. In February 1985 the Director submitted to me a new policy proposal for acquiring a dedicated storage facility for the Memorial at Fyshwick at a cost of $1.3m. I secured Cabinet's agreement and advised the Director accordingly in June 1985. On 30 October that year the Director proposed to me that, instead of purchasing the Fyshwick warehouse, the Government should build a new warehouse since half of the Fyshwick warehouse was the subject of a new five-year lease. While approving this change proposal, I asked the Director in a minute on 7 November last whether this new lease, or sublease, had been signed because the Memorial had failed to act promptly on receipt of Cabinet's approval of the purchase details. The Director responded: Approval to purchase was received in a letter dated 21 August 1985 . . . He said that negotiations to purchase had begun the previous week. That is wrong by precisely two months. The Director knew of Cabinet's approval as early as 4 June 1985. Not only did he lie to me; his laxity and incompetence meant that it was simply not possible to implement the Cabinet decision on a proposal that he initiated. The Chairman of the Council wrote to me on 8 November last year and again on 13 March 1986 in support of case No. 2 of revising and upgrading the Memorial's management structure. It was said that the case for the revised structure was well made in correspondence to me and to the Public Service Board. But neither letter from the Chairman made any mention of letters to the Director from the Public Service Board on 5 August last year and 19 November last year, both of which expressed serious misgivings about aspects of the proposed restructuring of the staff of the Australian War Memorial. At no time did the Director, either in person or through the Chairman, pass to me any hint of the Public Service Board's misgivings. Indeed, I believe that I was wrongly led to believe that the Public Service Board was in favour of such a proposition. This is another case of the Director lying to me. On 22 November last year, the Director sought my approval to an extension of time for submissions of the Memorial's 1984-85 annual report, claiming that the financial statements had been completed by 30 August last year and forwarded to the Auditor-General but that pressure of work facing the Auditor-General meant delays in obtaining certification. The reality is that the delay was caused because the Auditor-General had required several revisions and redraftings of these financial statements before he was prepared to grant certification. This is another example of my being misled by the Director. On 11 February 1986 Mr Fischer placed a question on notice regarding, among other things, the cost of providing a safe staircase in the Memorial exhibition areas-and my ministerial predecessor would know something about that area. The Director's suggested reply stated that the cost of the new staircase was not available to the Memorial. The fact was that these cost figures were readily available from the National Capital Development Commission or the Department of Housing and Construction, simply by lifting the telephone and finding out. In addition, the suggested answer gave no hint that the staircase in question was the subject of a serious dispute between the Memorial and the NCDC. The dispute was publicly aired on behalf of the Opposition by Mr Fischer-as was his right-by putting his question on notice. Honourable senators should be aware that it took three pieces of correspondence from the Secretary to my Department to the Director to extract the necessary information and provide Mr Fischer with an answer that I regarded as satisfactory. Again, I stress to the Senate that it was an Opposition inquiry that gave rise to the misleading and inaccurate advice from the Director. Finally there is the matter of the VEA proclamation ceremony and the entry in the staff memorial bulletin of 13 May that the ceremony was being held at the Memorial as a result of a ministerial direction. Questions on this matter have been raised with me several times in the chamber. The Director gave me personally on 31 July this year the advice that he had reiterated on a number of occasions in an interview with me and the head of my Department that he had nothing to do with the preparation of the staff bulletin or the use of the words `ministerial direction'. But when we looked at the staff bulletin that had been provided by the staff officer concerned, in the Director's own handwriting were the words `at ministerial direction'. He lied to me again. The fact is that, in his handwritten annotations of 19 May, he instructed the public relations officer to use those words in the bulletin. As honourable senators will be aware, that bulletin was leaked to the Opposition shadow Minister, who used the `ministerial direction' reference as the basis for an attack upon me in the Parliament. When the Director was confronted with this clear evidence of his falsehood, he retracted his earlier statements to me and said he had now recalled issuing the instructions. But it took him more than 72 hours to do that, despite the fact that I had a copy of the original document with his handwriting in my office at that time. This is a fair indication of how much importance the Director puts on providing his Minister with factual, reliable information. I challenge any shadow Minister, or indeed any Minister of any Government, to say that he would be prepared to rely upon that sort of advice in order to establish the veracity or otherwise of the information given to him which he is obliged to give to the Parliament from time to time. On the Heaton letter, the Director's advice was, in the words of Mr Jones, `at best inadequate and at worst misleading'. That comment refers also to the warehouse acquisition. What does Mr Jones say? He says: . . . this matter appears to have been handled very badly . . . The Director's minute . . . was both untimely and misleading . . . the words used by the Director were misleading . . . The Director's response to the Minister did not in any way address the Minister's questions . . . In relation to the eastern staircase he said that the Director's advice in relation to this matter was both inadequate and misleading. On the revised Memorial structure Mr Jones said: . . . the Minister would have good reason to believe that he was given inadequate and misleading information in relation to this matter. On the annual report Mr Jones said: The Minister's assertion therefore that he was given inadequate and misleading advice is not unreasonable. Senator Lewis and members of the Opposition, I ask in what way are witnesses to be questioned on those issues? They are issues of direct relationship between the Director and the Minister. In what way would they ask somebody in the War Memorial to deal with those matters, except the Director himself? The Director himself was asked those questions by Mr Jones. In short, I have been completely vindicated in my concerns that the Director has given me false, inaccurate and misleading information on several occasions. It is not just I who have been misled by the Director. On the matter of the change in the Memorial's banker, it is clear that the Director lied not just to me but also to the previous Minister, the present Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, the Council, and even Mr Jones himself. He was asked questions by the Council about the banking arrangements. He lied to the Council last week when he was questioned on that matter, when Mr Jones was brought back, and Mr Jones produced written evidence of the answer that had been provided to him by the Director. The Council found that in fact the Director had lied to the Council as late as Wednesday last week. The Chairman of the Council has written today to the head of each political party asking that the matter not be determined at this particular time. Let us look at the spurious Opposition claim regarding a denial of the rules of natural justice by the Jones inquiry. The Director was given every opportunity to deal with the specific allegation made against him. He was provided with copies of the relevant information. No adverse finding was made against the Director without his first having the opportunity to respond to it. Mr Jones made it clear to the Director that he could make submissions as to the weight to be attached to any material. The suggestion that the Director had been denied natural justice because he did not have the opportunity to interview witnesses does not in any event apply to those issues I have already dealt with, which were issues between the Director and the Minister. No witnesses can refute those issues. It depends on what the documents of the War Memorial clearly disclosed and what the Director said about the advice he gave in those documents. On page 39 of the inquiry's report we find that the Director was offered the opportunity to respond to specific allegations made by the staff. Obviously he was responsible in some way for leaking those allegations to Mr Everingham. The Director refused to respond to Mr Jones. He wanted to question the staff concerned. In view of the reprisals the Director has exacted against other staff who have disagreed with him previously, it is not surprising that Mr Jones was not prepared to let the Director interview staff. However, he took the proper course of making him aware of any specific allegations and seeking a response. It needs to be understood that reprisals against staff who have taken the courageous stand of speaking up to Mr Jones are a serious matter, and I have an equal obligation to look after the staff at the Memorial as I have to protect the interests of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. Staff contacted my office this morning to express their fears about retribution. Let me say to Senator Lewis and to any other senator that in no way have any of my personal staff been involved in any of these negotiations without my express approval. Bear in mind that these matters took place during the most difficult six months period any Minister could have had in getting the Veterans' Entitlements Bill passed by the Senate. Senator Lewis would be aware of how many hours and hours were spent by him, myself and the Australian Democrats to reach a resolution on those issues. Certainly I delegated some responsibilities in the matter and I make no adverse response about what my staff have done at my request. I ask honourable senators to look at the findings of Mr Jones. He concludes: . . . there are serious weaknesses in the management performance of the present Director. This represents a value judgment by me and is a considered view, arrived at in accordance with the Terms of Reference as discussed at the beginning of this chapter. . . . I acknowledge that some of the less than full and frank provision of information to the Minister, and to a degree to the Council also, may well be due to carelessness by officers or loose administrative practice in the Memorial. If practices are loose or information is less than frank, whose responsibility is that? Under the War Memorial Act the responsibility for the day to day affairs of the War Memorial rests entirely with the Director. So if they are less than full and frank it is pretty clear that in those circumstances the Director has to accept responsibility. Mr Jones also states: . . . in some situations I have concluded that the Director has displayed a less than satisfactory level of competence and a carelessness in expression where the circumstances demanded truthfulness. I demand truthfulness from the officers in my Department. It has been given to me by every person in the Department of Veterans' Affairs over the last 3 1/2 years. I am entitled to demand it from the Director of the Australian War Memorial and I will insist upon that sort of approach being adopted by everybody who comes within my jurisdiction. Unfortunately, with the way the Act is currently written, there is very little chance that either the Government or the Council can resolve this matter in the best interests of the Australian War Memorial. The Government and the Council have faith and confidence in the Australian War Memorial, and we do not believe that in the current circumstances the situation can be allowed to continue. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.56) —The Senate is debating a motion brought forward by the Opposition in the following terms: `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs either to accept the finding of the Jones inquiry that there was no `misbehaviour' by the Director of the Australian War Memorial or to institute a full and open inquiry to be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice as recommended to the Council by its solicitors. Two matters arise from that. The first, which is of some importance, is that this is a matter of urgency. Unlike a matter of public importance, it is a matter on which the Senate must express an opinion and vote. The second point of elucidation is, I think, the reference to misbehaviour. I imagine that refers to section 24a of the Australian War Memorial Act, which sets out the reasons for termination of the Director's appointment. It reads: (1) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of the Director by reason of the misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity of the Director. (2) If the Director- becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors . . . is absent from duty . . . engages in paid employment outside the duties of his office . . . the Governor-General shall terminate the appointment of the Director. I think that is the crux of the situation. In the minds of some people it is a reason for the Director to stay there because that provision was put there to give the War Memorial a degree of independence from the Government. In the minds of other people it may be something that should be changed, because without its being changed there is no way that anybody who wished to do so could get rid of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming from the position of Director. This matter needs to be seen in proper proportion. Firstly, the Australian Democrats hold that it is of basic importance that any inquiry into the affairs of a citizen should be made in the most full and open way and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that an appeal by a citizen for such an inquiry should be treated seriously. It is for that reason that we will be supporting this motion of urgency. However, we do not wish this to be construed in any way as meaning that we are taking sides in the current Australian War Memorial controversy, which the Australian Democrats believe is something which is deeply to be regretted. When I hear, as I do, some of the minutiae on the small matters that have been raised-they are small matters-in the debate so far, it gives me increasing cause for debate that a memorial which is a repository of honour in the opinion of millions of people in this country should become embroiled in this kind of controversy. The Democrats view is that that controversy ought to be ended as quickly as possible and in the most proper way possible. We believe that the inquiry that has been mentioned in this motion has now become inevitable as a result of the behaviour of all concerned in this matter. It ought to have been foreseen that the Flemming matter when it first arose would turn out to be one of very considerable controversy. This is due, in no small measure, to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's position and his high profile in the community. It is perfectly natural for him to feel that his reputation is involved and that there should not even be the appearance of a smear on him unless he can be given the fullest possible inquiry. That is understandable. Air Vice-Marshal Flemming has claimed with some reason that the Jones inquiry was not that fullest possible inquiry. That is not to imply that the Jones inquiry was anything less than fair-far from it. It was a lengthy inquiry and I think Mr Jones went to a great deal of trouble over it. That also is not a matter which I think need be canvassed in this debate. However, it is necessary to look briefly at some of Mr Jones's conclusions. He states-I think this covers most of the serious points that have been raised-on page 3 of his summary in the report: I conclude that there are serious weaknesses in the management performance of the present Director. This represents a value judgment by me and is a considered view, arrived at in accordance with the Terms of Reference . . . Nevertheless, the Director is entitled to respect from the Memorial staff at all levels for his authority and responsibilities. This has not always been forthcoming to the extent that it should have been, even in the face of differences or difficulties. Senator Lewis —That is an interesting observation, isn't it? Senator MASON —Yes, it is an interesting observation and something obviously must be drawn from it. Mr Jones goes on to say: I conclude that in a number of cases, insufficient or misleading information has been given to the present Minister, but not so as to cause him serious embarrassment in the public arena. Then-and I think this is final point of importance-he says: I cannot conclude from this inquiry that there exists misbehaviour by the Director in terms of Section 24 (1) of the AWM Act as I understand that provision. I quoted from that provision in the Act when I began my speech. It concerns the termination of employment. Mr Jones goes on: I do not find a deliberate intention by the Director to transgress in carrying out his duties. Rather in some situations I have concluded that the Director has displayed a less than satisfactory level of competence and a carelessness in expression where the circumstances demanded truthfulness. While that in itself is a fairly serious statement it is not a statement which, to my mind, is something on which one ought to damn any officer in any position. It is not a statement by Mr Jones which would indicate that he felt that the Director, in the exercise of his powers, was beyond smartening up his act-let us put it that way-if he felt that were necessary. I would have thought that those statements were virtually an admonition to the Director to smarten up his act. The Director-if one can believe what the Director said on the media today-said the he is back at his job and that he wants to do everything he possible can to reinstate his position where the Minister is concerned. The Minister's view of that is something which, of course, rests with himself. My own view is that it is always wise and normally charitable in this world to give people a second chance. Whether or not that is justifiable is purely a matter of speculation on my part. I do not believe that I know enough about the situation-and I am pretty sure that nobody in the Senate knows enough about the situation as it exists in that place with all the personality problems and conflicts that it obviously has-to make that basic conclusion. I believe that it is totally unreasonable that all the affairs of the War Memorial should be dragged into a debate and that we should have a long series of personal attacks on individuals. One might argue perhaps that there is a need for those kinds of attacks and that they should be made, but if they are to be made, surely it is better that they be raised in a full and open judicial inquiry where I think they are much more likely to be presented in a more circumspect way than they would be in this place. With respect to this place-it is not a criticism of this place-it is a fact that utterances here are privileged and from time to time statements are made which could not be made in an inquiry of the type I suggest. I notice reported in this morning's Press a letter from Air Vice-Marshal Flemming to Dame Beryl Beaurepaire, who chairs the Council of the Australian War Memorial. In the letter Air Vice-Marshal Flemming says that his early retirement would `result in the very controversy you are trying to avoid'. I must say that I share that sentiment. He said that he had grave misgivings about the manner in which the recently completed report by Mr Ken Jones had been conducted, and he claimed that he had been denied natural justice. In the letter he said: I am convinced that the whole series of inquiries was initiated by the Minister's Office primarily on unreliable information supplied by a very small section of disgruntled memorial staff . . . That, at the very least, is a challenging statement, the truth of which can only be justified in an inquiry which is very open and public and in which all issues are brought to bear. It is important to note that the Director has made that statement. If he has made that statement, and we take it at face value, he feels that he has nothing to fear from such an inquiry whatever the situation may be. It is, of course, an argument for such an inquiry to be conducted and I believe an argument for it virtually to be inevitable at this stage. It is interesting to note that the Sydney Morning Herald today also states: The Government, by way of the council, was understood to have offered the Director $60,000 in compensation. The Director, I understand, has refused that, saying that it is not regarded as a price for his self-respect. That, again, is a challenging statement, and one which, to my mind, makes it necessary for it to be taken further. Important though this matter is in principle-and I think this is the next important point in assessing our attitude towards this matter-it is of small substantive content when considered in the framework of the enormous amount of important legislation this Parliament must get through before the end of the session. This includes legislation concerning the Australia Card, the merger of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation with the Special Broadcasting Service, taxation and the Human Rights Commission. Many of these are matters which affect the welfare and future of millions of people. All of them represent quite considerable changes in the legal framework, and it is important that they should be fully debated. Honourable senators know as well as I do that bringing on this motion of urgency today will probably reduce the time for consideration of that legislation. While I am not necessarily disputing the Opposition's right to bring this motion on, I would hate in future to see debates continued on this matter, where it was brought back again and again to the attention of the Senate as matters of this kind have in the past. Neither do we have the time now or in the future to do justice to any inquiry into this matter before us and, again, that-if there is strong feeling that the present situation is unsatisfactory-is a good reason for an open inquiry. The debate so far on this urgency motion tends to confirm that view. We have had rather painful experiences in the past when this House has attempted to act as a kind of court. If one takes the trouble to look back through the centuries at the appalling records of other houses of parliament which have arrogated this function to themselves, one would find that they almost always ended in pain and hardship for the person thus judged and considerable trouble for the house of parliament that instigated it. One has only to consider the classic example of the trial in the House of Commons of Warren Hastings which dragged on for four years and which ended in the financial ruin and the destruction of the health of Hastings himself. That trial has rightly been condemned by history. It has been condemned because of the virtual inability of the parliamentary House at that time to conduct such an inquiry in a reasonable way-because of the nature of the House of Parliament. Since any attempt to make this motion a debate on whether or not Air Vice-Marshal Flemming ought to resign, or on any of the matters concerned, is very much to be regretted in my opinion and I will not canvass them here. I say merely that I am aware that judicial inquiries are expensive. However, this one ought not to take too long, and it appears to us to have been made inevitable by the conduct of all concerned. The Democrats advise the Government to accept the necessity for such an open inquiry with a good grace, and to proceed with it as soon as possible. If it does not, the matter is likely to become a political football to be kicked around right up until the next election and beyond. I know that the War Memorial Council is due to meet at 5 o'clock and that various statements on what it will do have been kicked around. I do not propose to canvass any of those and it is certainly not proper to anticipate its decisions-if any. But I cannot see that any decisions made by the Council at this stage can influence, or have any bearing on, the matter that is now before the Senate. However, I repeat that to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming his own reputation is naturally a matter of importance, and in no way do I criticise him in that. My own view is that there is little point in carrying this matter any further in this Parliament. It is a matter for the Government to sort out. A mess has been created. It is an untidy and unsavoury mess as it stands, and it certainly needs tidying up. I hope that ensuing speakers in this debate can restrain themselves from entering into a publicly broadcast witch hunt under privilege. But since this matter has been brought forward we will vote for the motion and hope that the Government agrees to a full and open inquiry as soon as possible. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.10) —The Senate is debating, as a matter of urgency: The need for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs either to accept the finding of the Jones inquiry that there was no `misbehaviour' by the Director of the Australian War Memorial or to institute a full and open inquiry to be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice as recommended to the Council by its solicitors. The reason we have this motion of urgency before us is that a man's reputation has been destroyed in public. There is no evidence at all to justify the destruction of that man's character. Not only has his character been destroyed but also he has been asked repeatedly by the Australian War Memorial Council and by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) in public to resign. All of these moves have been made after four inquiries and when there has been no evidence at all to justify them. The latest inquiry into the Australian War Memorial was led by someone who was hand-picked by the Minister. The terms of reference for that inquiry were broad-ranging into all matters of the management and operation of the Australian War Memorial as they related to the Director. What was the finding? The finding can be summarised by page 3 of the report on which the inquirer said: I cannot conclude from this Inquiry that there exists misbehaviour by the Director in the terms of section 24 (1) of the Australian War Memorial Act as I understand that provision. Senator Gietzelt, in his speech in his own defence, made a whole lot of nitpicking allegations against the Director. They principally related to where he claimed he had been misinformed. The paragraph before the one in which the inquirer, Mr Jones, says that he cannot conclude that there exists misbehaviour by the Director reads: I conclude that in a number of cases insufficient or misleading information has been given to the present Minister . . . The important qualification, which Senator Gietzelt has never referred to, is that Mr Jones then says: . . . but not so as to cause him serious embarrassment in the public arena. Yet we have had this persistent, sustained and vicious character assassination of a great Australian. We in the Senate want the Minister to accept the findings of his hand-picked inquirer, Mr Jones, and live by the umpire's decision or let us have a full and open inquiry into the actions of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. The Parliament, and above all the Senate, is the last repository of justice in this country. It is the last court of appeal. If Senator Gietzelt does not move to set up that full and open inquiry, we may well do so in the Senate. Not only has Air Vice-Marshal Flemming lost his reputation but also he has been asked to resign, both by the Minister and by the Council. He has been publicly instructed by both of them to resign, yet he has broken no laws at all. There is no authority to demand his resignation. This man has not had a fair go. Justice has not been done, let alone been seen to be done. We have had a whole lot of highly irregular actions by the Minister, reminiscent of the summary trial and execution mentality of a Third World country. Before I get on to those matters I want to talk a little about the history of the Australian War Memorial. It is our national memorial to those who died in war and it is a repository of Australian military history. Kenneth Clark, or Lord Clark as he was when he died, an expert on museums and culture, said that the Australian War Memorial was the finest of its type in the world. The Australian War Memorial attracts the biggest crowds in Australia of any public institution. It has an international reputation. It is an institution of which all Australians are proud. It exists for the benefit of all of us. It is set up under a special Act to be independent and non-political. It is governed by a Council which has wide and almost total powers. Its chief executive is a director. I quote from the Australian War Memorial Act regarding the powers of the Director. Section 20 (2) states: The Director is the chief executive officer of the Australian War Memorial and shall, subject to and in accordance with the general conditions of the Council, manage the affairs of the Memorial. Section 24 states that the Governor-General may terminate the appointment of the Director if he becomes bankrupt, is absent from duty without leave of absence for 14 consecutive days or 28 days in any 12 months or engages in paid employment outside the duties of his office. Air Vice-Marshal Flemming fills none of the conditions in section 24 for his resignation to be asked for in public. The War Memorial was always administered by whichever portfolio dealt with museums in general. In the previous Parliament Mr Cohen, as Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, was the Minister responsible for the Australian War Memorial. Senator Gietzelt wanted the Australian War Memorial in his portfolio and had it transferred to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. When the museum was set up it was never intended that it should be under the Department of Veterans' Affairs. But this Government has no respect for the feelings of the old diggers. For the first time ever it cut Defence Force retirement benefits. The Government is talking about including veterans, now the responsibility of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, with the age pensioners under the Department of Social Security, so one could not expect it to be concerned about the niceties of the preservation of the independence of the Australian War Memorial. Let us consider some of Senator Gietzelt's actions. They are not the actions of a fair and reasonable man. There was the failure to re- appoint a great Australian, Admiral Sir Anthony Synnot, who was the first Chairman of the Board not to get a second term. There was the way Senator Gietzelt stacked the Council with his left wing mates and the way he fired Des Corcoran, as Senator Lewis instanced. There is the way the cronies in his office talk to their cronies in the War Memorial. There is the way he politicised the Australian War Memorial by giving the first account of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill there. It has been the first time any Bill relating to veterans has been presented in the Australian War Memorial. Senator Gietzelt politicised the War Memorial that way. We have had all these attacks on the Director, Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, in public and in advance of any inquiries. The Minister's attacks after the inquiry are one thing, but his attacks before the findings were released is inexcusable. These are not the actions of a fair and reason- able man. Whom are we talking about? We are talking about Air Vice-Marshal Flemming-Officer of the Order of Australia, member of the Order of Australia, Distinguished Flying Cross, United States Air Medal, Mentioned in Despatches-a man who for 40 years has served his country as a fighter pilot and as a senior officer in the Royal Australian Air Force, in the Pacific and in Korea. He flew in the first strike against the communists in Korea. He ended up as chief of the Air Force development section. For 40 years this man put his life on the line for the people of Australia. He was ready to die on orders for his political and military masters. He came through 40 years with an absolutely unblemished record-until he met with Senator Gietzelt. What have been his actions since he has been Director of the War Memorial? He has had a brilliant record. It is over 30 years since I first visited the Australian War Memorial and I have kept a constant interest in it. At present the Australian War Memorial is functioning at its highest ever level. Air Vice-Marshal Flemming is a man of quick intelligence. He is someone who wants quick results. That is a great crime in a town like this where nothing happens, or happens at a glacial pace. Let us consider the growth in the budget of the War Memorial, the number of its staff, which has gone from 156 to over 200 since he became Director, the new galleries, the revitalisation of the whole place. This man is a visionary, hard-working, intelligent achiever. But he has the personality of a typical fighter pilot. He wants things quickly and he wants them now. He wants results. He does not want red tape. That is anathema to the bureaucracy. Yet we have the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) telling us that he is going to reform the Australian Public Service. Why? To get rid of red tape. We have the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) telling us that the Opposition will reform the Public Service in a couple of months time when we get into government. Why? To get rid of red tape so that the bureaucracy can do things for the people of Australia. This man is not getting a fair go. He was attacked repeatedly by Senator Gietzelt. He was the subject of a cowardly attack when he was sick in bed for three days. At a hearing of the Estimates Committee Senator Gietzelt tore him apart under parliamentary privilege. He went through the business of putting in an acting director from his Department. The Deputy Director of the War Memorial was not asked to relieve for the three days; the Acting Director was appointed from Senator Gietzelt's Department. In this town that is tantamount to saying that a gross scandal is going on, that we have a Watergate at the War Memorial. Senator Gietzelt knew that when he appointed that man as Acting Director. So much for the actions of the Minister, but what of the Council? The Council is the governing body of the War Memorial. When one runs anything a responsibility goes with that command. One has a responsibility to look after the welfare of people beneath one. If serious allegations are made they must be inquired into. If there is no substance to them the person against whom the allegations were made must be supported. What did the Council of the War Memorial do? Its members did not make any inquiries until they were forced to. Having found after inquiry that the person in question was clear, they failed to support him and even worse they asked him to resign-without reason. The Council has written twice to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming saying that it wants him to leave for the good of the Australian War Memorial. Members of the Council lack moral fibre. Their actions are as contemptible as those of the Minister. How must people lying in their graves feel when they know that at the War Memorial, their memorial, they have custodians such as the present Council members looking after their interests? An article from the Age, which was drawn to my attention before lunch, alleges: The council now is expected to look at ways of abolishing the director's position. Sources said last night that Dame Beryl was likely to write to the leaders of all political parties asking that the Australian War Memorial Act be amended. She can save her time in writing to me. One could almost be excused for wondering why we need to change the legislation when the Council at present is just a puppet of Senator Gietzelt. Furthermore, this action flies in the face of the findings of the Minister's inquiry. The Jones Inquiry into the Australian War Memorial specifically found that there was no need to alter the legislation. Coming back to the Jones Inquiry, justice was not done there. Unsubstantiated allegations and rumours were put to the inquiry and the accused was denied any opportunity of having legal representation before that body, despite the fact that his solicitor asked for it and that a former head of the Attorney-General's Department, Sir Clarrie Harders, another very great Australian who, after a lifetime in the Public Service, knows the bureaucracy backwards and how inquiries are conducted and who has a position of eminence in the legal profession, said: `Your client has the right, under the terms of reference as they stand, to be present in the circumstances mentioned and to question witnesses'. On top of those two opinions, the War Memorial's own legal adviser said: `Air Vice-Marshal Flemming should be present when his accusers are slandering him and he should have the right to legal representation'. This is why we are very concerned. If this matter is to be decided by slander and innuendo, we want to know whether there is a personal element to this attack. Is there a political element? Are some people in the War Memorial feeling guilty after the Arthur Young audit report into their actions in the research and publications section? We on this side of the chamber are quite prepared to accept the findings of any open inquiry. We will obey the umpire's decisions. Those opposite should set up that inquiry if they will not live by the findings of the first one. The reputation of a very great Australian has been taken away. While reputations might not mean much to the Australian Labor Party, that is the gravest of all charges. I was taught as a school boy, and as Shakespeare said: Who steals my purse, steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name, Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.24) —I often do not agree with Senator Mason but when he called for a reasonable and sensible level of debate on this issue I hoped that this would happen. Of course, it has not happened. I suppose that one would not expect it to happen with Senator MacGibbon. I accept everything Senator MacGibbon has said about the fine war record of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. I accept the fact that he was willing to fight and die for his country, and I respect him for it. I point out that so was the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt willing to do that. I point out also that both those gentlemen have a much more distinguished war record than does the previous speaker. Senator Walters —And yourself. Senator GRIMES —I make no claim for mine. I ask Senator MacGibbon to tell us at some time for whom and where he served overseas and whom he serves now. I will deal with some of the points put forward by Senator MacGibbon because it is essential to do so. The first thing he said was that the Australian War Memorial was transferred to Senator Gietzelt and his Department because Senator Gietzelt wanted it. All I can say is that anyone who was here at that time who believes that will believe anything. The repeated request that the War Memorial be transferred to the Department of Veterans' Affairs was made by the representatives of the veterans, the Returned Services League. That request had been made year after year. Anyone who believes that Senator Gietzelt wanted the job does not know the history and record of what happened. Secondly, as well as condemning the Minister-we on this side cop that and usually do not ask for it to be withdrawn as do those on the other side-Senator MacGibbon condemned the whole Council of the War Memorial, including Dame Beryl Beaurepaire. I know that Senator Walters believes that Dame Beryl is a socialist and that in the past Senator Walters has said that Dame Beryl is a socialist, but no one else believes that. Senator Walters —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I know that Senator Grimes has said in the past that he likes saying things off the top of his head, but I deny that I have ever said that. He knows that I have never said that Dame Beryl Beaurepaire is a socialist. In his typical way, he is telling fibs. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a point of order, Senator Walters. You may make a personal explanation later. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters may make a personal explanation later, but I just remind her of a meeting that was held in Hobart some years ago. Many people present will remember the things that Senator Walters said about Dame Beryl Beaurepaire. However, I accept that that is irrelevant. Let us not fool about that. Senator MacGibbon condemned both the Minister and, to a considerable extent, the Council. He talked about Mr Jones being the choice of the Minister to conduct the Inquiry when he was the choice of the Council. The honourable senator said that what was needed was justice, then, of all things, he threatened that unless he and his colleagues get what they want they will have an inquiry here in which the Senate will be judge, jury and sentencer and everything else. Let us look at some calmer words written about this matter, which I notice that no one on the other side has quoted. The words in the editorial of the Canberra Times this morning are not bad words. It points out, very correctly: . . . the memorial is not and should not be a party-political thing, it is quite obvious that government has an interest in its proper management, in the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations and its meeting, and being seen to meet, minimum accounting and accountability requirements. Any government which ignored signs that all was not well, or that public funds were not . . . effectively spent, would be derelict in its duty and betraying ideals that the memorial itself stands for. As has been pointed out, this Parliament attempted to have the administration of the War Memorial put at arm's length from politics by setting up a council of distinguished people to run it. As so often happens, and I have been critical in the past of this sort of procedure, in attempting to push away from the Parliament and the Government responsibility for an organisation such as the War Memorial, the legislation makes it very difficult to get rid of someone even if the Council wants to get rid of that person-whether or not the Government wants to get rid of that person-if the proper standards of efficiency and effectiveness of operations and the proper standards of accounting and accountability are not being met. As Senator Gietzelt has said and as the newspapers have said, we have had considerable disquiet about what has been happening at the War Memorial in recent times. We have had the O'Connor report, the Auditor-General's report-considerably critical-the Arthur Young report and the Jones report. No one here could suggest that these reports have come up with the most satisfactory findings for the War Memorial. The Jones report finds that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming `has displayed a less than satisfactory level of competence and a carelessness in expression where the circumstances demanded truthfulness'. Senator Lewis —You are selectively quoting, like Senator Gietzelt. Senator GRIMES —I ask Senator Lewis to wait a minute. Mr Jones stated: I do not find a deliberate intention by the Director to transgress in carrying out his duties. I accept that. Whose job is it then, given by this Parliament, to make decisions about the efficient operating of the War Memorial arising out of that report? Surely it is the job of the War Memorial Council. The Council wants to do that job. It has written to the leaders of all the political parties suggesting that it wants to get on with that job in an atmosphere without the political nonsense, political rhetoric and personal attacks which have been going on here this afternoon. The Opposition has deliberately chosen-it is its choice-to ignore the Council's reasonable request to be able to make its decision this afternoon having considered the report and its requests to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming and any facts that may further arise. What has happened in this place? Quite clearly for party political reasons-one need hear only the speech of Senator MacGibbon to realise that-the Opposition has ignored the operations of the Council and its requests and has decided that it is urgent on Monday to influence and subvert the actions of the Council. It cannot wait until tonight. Maybe it is fair enough for the Opposition to want to do that but I do not believe it is a sensible thing to do. The Council knows what is going on at the Memorial. It has reports of members of the staff and the reports of previous inquiries. I am the last to get up here and to say that I know all the details on this matter. I hope Senator MacGibbon does not think he does. I hope Senator Lewis does not think he does either, although I suspect that Senator Lewis knows a little more than Senator MacGibbon. That is why he relied a little more on facts and a little less on rhetoric. The Council has to meet further to consider its difficult decision in the light of all the facts. Yet we conduct a debate this afternoon asking for yet another judicial inquiry, for heaven's sake. Senator Walters —Allowing justice. Senator GRIMES —In view of the things that Senator Walters and some of her colleagues have said about a person who is recently deceased in this country, for her to talk about justice, for her even to mention the word `justice', is the greatest example of hypocrisy I have ever heard. What she wants is what she sees as justice for her friends and she will quite happily kick people to death and bury them. She ought to be ashamed of herself. She is a disgrace to the human race. I do not want that spy in front of her getting up and saying anything different. What are the Opposition's motives in seeking another inquiry? It is trying to prevent the Australian War Memorial Council from doing its job and performing its statutory functions as given by this Parliament, statutory functions which are very difficult to perform in view of the way in which the legislation is written. I suppose the Opposition is trying to create further political fuss, to continue to have the War Memorial made a political football, when, as the Canberra Times in its very sensible editorial said, that is the last thing it ought to do. It is trying to keep pushing this issue as a political issue because all the other issues it has pushed have failed. All I can say is that people outside this city have very little interest in what is happening and certainly do not consider this to be the greatest political issue of the day. I think they will be extremely surprised to find that the Opposition in the Senate on this day, with all the hoo-ha it is making about other issues outside, should pick this issue to debate as a matter of urgency on Monday, 17 November, when this afternoon the Council this Parliament has charged with looking after the War Memorial is meeting to consider the same issue. The Chairperson of the Council is not by any means a Labor Party appointee or sympathiser. The majority of members of the Council certainly are not. I suppose I could do what has been done this afternoon and go through the reports, particularly the claims by the Director that he had been denied natural justice, the claims that he could not answer his accusations even though page 39 of the report states that he was offered the opportunity to respond to specific allegations made by the staff and he actually refused to do so. He refused to do so despite the fact that the inquirer wanted him to do so and asked him to do so. We know that there is considerable concern by the very large staff of the War Memorial-not only Air Vice-Marshal Flemming-for their future if they question in any way the actions of the Air Vice-Marshal. I suggest that has been one of the problems. That is another side of the can do mentality that Senator MacGibbon finds so attractive-if one cannot do it one kicks whoever gets in one's way. A series of inquiries have looked at the situation. The Council does not deserve the abuse it received from Senator MacGibbon this afternoon. It deserves the right to have its meeting and to sort out what should happen in this case. Instead of that, it will have to do so following the debating of an urgency motion, of all things, brought up in this place this afternoon asking for yet another judicial inquiry. The question is not the great war record of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming; no one questions that. The question is not his willingness to serve this country. No one questions that, any more than one questions Senator Gietzelt's willingness to do that. The question is Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's capacity as the managing director, if you like, of the War Memorial, what has happened since he became Director of the War Memorial, the competence he has shown, and the effectiveness of his operations there. That is a matter that certainly should still be judged by the Council and which later can be judged by this Parliament; but to suggest that it should be subject to yet another judicial inquiry, and if that does not happen, of all things, a politically motivated Senate select committee, I think is the height of lunacy. I am amazed that it should be suggested in view of the recent history of such witch hunts in this place. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.39) —in reply-I have tried to keep this debate on a fair level and I shall continue to do so but I must respond to Senator Grimes's reference to another Senate committee of inquiry in relation to a person recently deceased. I point out to Senator Grimes that in that case this Senate established a second hearing just so that the particular person concerned could have the same principles of natural justice as Air Vice-Marshal Flemming is seeking in this case. That is exactly what Air Vice-Marshal Flemming is seeking. If the Minister does not want to accept the advice of Mr Jones, it behoves him to ensure that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming is given access to the same principle of natural justice as this Senate gave to the particular deceased person whom Senator Grimes referred to. The Opposition parties are not calling for a judicial inquiry; we are simply pointing out that the Minister has created an impasse-a terrible situation for the Australian War Memorial Council-because he does not accept the findings of Mr Jones. Those findings certainly do not put Air Vice-Marshal Flemming in any sort of blameless position. I openly acknowledge that the findings make it clear that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming is responsible for some misleading information which has been given to the Minister. Senator Gietzelt —Isn't that serious? Senator LEWIS —I agree with Senator Gietzelt that, yes, it is serious. If I were the Minister I would be concerned about it, but I must say that I would have taken action about this matter a lot earlier than he took action. The report of Mr Jones goes on to say that although that information may have been misleading, it was not so as to cause the Minister serious embarrassment in the public arena. I draw Senator Gietzelt's attention to the fact that he has not been subject to any action in this chamber in relation to what he tells us was misleading information. I think that is what Mr Jones is talking about. The very important thing which Senator Gietzelt refuses to face up to is that, even if he does not accept this report, Mr Jones says: I cannot conclude from this Inquiry-- and I will be fair, I will not be selective in what I read out from this paragraph-- that there exists misbehaviour by the Director in the terms of Section 24 (1) of the AWM Act as I understand that provision. I do not find a deliberate intention by the Director to transgress in carrying out his duties. Rather in some situations I have concluded that the Director has displayed a less than satisfactory level of competence and a carelessness in expression where the circumstances demanded truthfulness. Senator Gietzelt —What does that mean? Senator LEWIS —What it means is `a carelessness in expression'. He is not a trained public servant who responds to your questions in the way that a trained public servant might be prepared to respond. Senator Withers —By not responding. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Withers says, more often than not by not responding, or by having two bob each way. What he did was tell the Minister what he thought the situation was at the time. As has been pointed out, on one occasion when there was not legal ownership of an aircraft but equitable ownership of the aircraft, he said: `We own the aircraft'. He misled the Minister by not pointing out that it was only equitable ownership of the aircraft. As has been indicated, it really is nitpicking by the Minister. That result of this very extensive and thorough investigation was that Mr Jones not only made these findings but also went on to point out to the Council how the problem could be resolved. He pointed out the legislative changes that had been suggested to him, whether he supported them or not, and he pointed out the steps the Council could take to resolve its dilemma. But the Minister has refused to accept the report. The Minister has said that he must win. The Minister has said to the Council: `Get the Director to resign. Offer him $60,000 and get him to resign.' If the Minister had adopted a reasonable approach to this matter it may well have been that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, for the sake of harmony, would have resigned a year before his contract expired. I do not know whether he would have or not. But how could the Minister possibly expect him to do so when, in the security of this chamber, he keeps bucketing him at every opportunity. That is what has made the negotiations absolutely impossible-the Minister's behaviour. The Minister is trying to have it every way. He set up the inquiry and he required the Council to conduct the inquiry. He told the Council what its terms of reference were. He has had his report and now he says-- Senator Gietzelt —That's not true; the Council drew up the terms of reference. Senator LEWIS —The Minister wrote the Council a letter in which he told it, at great length and in great detail, precisely what he wanted inquired into. So that fixes that. The Minister wanted the inquiry and he has had the inquiry, but he is now not prepared to accept the report. He now wants Air Vice-Marshal Flemming to resign, but at the same time he continues to bucket him under the privilege of this Parliament. The Minister wants it all ways. He has left everyone in a hopeless dilemma and as I said in the motion of urgency, as a result he is leading everyone to a situation where the only possible result will be to have some sort of full and open inquiry, to be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, which will cost everyone many, many thousands of dollars and which would have been unnecessary if the Minister had adopted a reasonable approach to the report of Mr Jones. I move: That the question be now put. Senator Gietzelt —Mr Deputy President- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There will be no debate on that motion. Senator Gietzelt —I do not want to debate that; I just want to table some documents. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You may table those documents before the question is put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Gietzelt —I table five letters relating to negotiations on the early retirement of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. Original question put: That the motion (Senator Lewis's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Macklin, M. J. Baume, Michael Mason, C. V. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Powell, J. T. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Sanders, N. K. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F.(Teller) Vigor, D. B. Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Alston, R. K. R. Button, J. N. Durack, P. D. Georges, G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.55) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I commend the report to the Senate. It is particularly strong in excellent sentiments about the development of Australian industry. It has an admirable layout and its content is very good, if one reads it in isolation from what the Government is actually doing. The information about the aims of the Department, its structure and programs is very well set out. In fact, within the Government's operations, I would say that it is a bastion of virtue in a den of iniquity. Australia has been in the midst of a trade crisis for the last 18 months. This Department must be at the cutting edge in getting us out of that crisis. The Government was rather slow to acknowledge and react to the problems of our large trade deficit. But the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, and his Department have been implementing policies which offer us some hope of being able to pull out of the problems. The introduction to the report states: Australia needs to shift economic resources into the traded goods and services sectors. The substantial depreciation of the Australian dollar in response to our current account weakness provides an important opportunity. I believe that the Department has been trying to take advantage of this situation through operations such as the 150 per cent tax allowance, the grants for industrial research and development and training schemes such as the national industry extension service-the NIES scheme-which it is carrying out in conjunction with the States. The Department, at page 15 of the report, states that its main resource is its staff, and that it is developing an industrial democracy plan, embracing the equal employment opportunity program. This, of course, is what all departments are expected to do. But the Department states that it is well advanced in this area, and I congratulate it. However, the main crunch of the report comes at page 52, which mentions the type of environment in which the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce is operating. We are operating in an area in which business taxation is being increased. I note with some amusement that the tax measures which are mentioned at page 52 of the report do not include the fringe benefits tax. They do include the capital gains and the non-pecuniary benefits tax. The reduction of personal income tax and the accelerated depreciation provisions are mentioned. If one is to believe the report, everything in industry is completely rosy and the Government is offering a stable business environment. I do not believe that that is the case. The Department is obviously trying to provide it, but I do not think it is being helped by government. I commend the report as excellent reading. The graphs and the material are very informative about what is happening to Australian industry. In fact, it is not a happy picture when one looks at the graphs at the back of the document. Despite the efforts of the Department, which are laudable, the end result for our business is not very vast investments in new developments. In the main, investment of foreign money seems to be going into takeover activities, and I deplore this development. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.00) —In the covering letter with the annual report of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, the Secretary to the Department said to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button): This year's report has been written around the theme `managing change'. The theme reflects the significant changes this year in Australia's economic circumstances and the corresponding need for urgency in the Department's efforts to encourage the international competitiveness, export orientation and innovativeness of Australian manufacturing and service industries. It is now trite to say that Australia must export more and more manufacturing and technology products. Exports of mining and agricultural goods have served Australia well, and still do so, but clearly they are no longer sufficient to establish the balance of trade in this country's favour. Claims are made that exports of services, manufactured goods and technology will blossom if they are produced cheaply enough. Again and again the theme is taken up in this chamber that government should ensure that wages are low, that hours are long and that taxation on industry is at a minimum. Such claims-they may be made later in this debate-are simply wrong and quite simplistic. The Minister for Science, Mr Barry Jones, has demonstrated this again and again in the most lucid of fashions. If low wages and long hours were all that were needed for successful manufacture and technology, countries such as Bangladesh and other Third World countries ought to be exporting myriad manufactured goods and services, but they are not. If high wages and short hours prohibited the export of goods and made them too dear, Sweden, which has a 32-hour working week and much higher wages than Australia, would not be successful, yet it is one of the most successful exporting countries in the world. The reason for that is that its traditions, culture and practices over many years have been oriented towards the export of the sorts of goods that presently find favour in world markets. I make the point at this stage that the sort of analysis often made in this chamber and elsewhere is that the good times will come if government simply reduces taxes on business and as a consequence throws the tax burden on to the workers of this community. To take the burden of taxes properly paid by business and place it on workers is not only unfair but also simply the wrong analysis of the sorts of problems we face. Solving Australia's problems depends more upon turning around the world's perception of what Australia produces and the quality of those products than it does upon attempts to reduce the cost of producing the sorts of goods on which the world relies. It is not as though Australia has a poor reputation for manufactured goods. The problem is that Australia has no reputation, by and large, for manufactured goods. The solution is to look to the area where we can establish a reputation, to increase the sorts of things that will lead to the production of good quality goods, goods that people want to buy, and that does not necessarily mean the cheapest of goods. To equate cheapness of goods with the solution to our problems is short-sighted. Fortunately, this report goes into the sorts of questions I have raised. Hopefully, honourable senators will cease crying out for lower wages, shorter hours and increased burdens upon the people who work and will look more to finding real solutions to the problems in terms of improving the quality of goods that we manufacture. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.05) —I welcome the opportunity to say a couple of things on the annual report of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce which I have not yet had a chance to read in full. If one were to look at the work of the departments of the Commonwealth it would have to be said that the work of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce has probably brought forth the least criticism from the Opposition in that it thinks that a number of the initiatives being taken by the Department and a number of the policies-indeed, the general direction of policy which is being pursued under the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button)-is correct. In other words, we think that the Government is more correct in its actions in this area than it is in most others. Our fundamental criticism of the Government's approach to industry policy relates not to the work of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce but rather to the failure of the Government to bring in other policies which would make the policies of this Department work better. In particular, we have been critical of the Government's failure to come to grips with what we see as the failures of the taxation system and the labour market to adapt in a way which is necessary if we are to have a modern manufacturing economy. The Opposition would agree with the comment in the introduction to the report that achieving substantial and sustainable progress will depend on increasing business investment. To get that increased investment we believe that it is necessary for the Government to change some of its policies in other areas. It cannot persist with macroeconomic policies which maintain interest rates in Australia at such extraordinarily high levels and expect, at the same time, that there will be substantial investment in industry. We see an odd imbalance between what the Government is seeking to do through this Department and what it is seeking to do through other departments, including the Department of the Treasury. We are very critical of the fact that the logic which should be applied to the policies which are being promoted by Senator Button is not being applied by the Government. To the extent that we have qualms about the approach of the Department, it would be in the suggestion that the Government is there as an agent for managing change. I think that expression was used by the head of the Department in his letter to Senator Button accompanying this report. The question the Opposition would raise is the extent to which the Department should be managing change as against facilitating the changes which are certainly necessary. To become a bit specific, if we look at the approach which the Minister adopted and which the Department, on behalf of the Minister, facilitated in the development of the heavy engineering package we see an example of some of the concerns which the Opposition feels. There is no doubt that the Department, and indeed the Minister, can play a very important role in educating a particular industry sector to the need for change. The sorts of discussions which were facilitated by the Minister and in which the Department participated, and which led to the acceptance by the industry of the need to make changes, is a very constructive process. The fact that there needed to be discussions about improving productivity, growth through investment and new capital equipment and technologies does make one wonder what in the world management in these industries and the labour unions involved were thinking about if that was not apparent to them. However, it seems to have been necessary to engage in this process of discussion to develop thinking in this area. Our concern is not that process; our concern is that, at the end of the day when the package is announced, we find there are some quite bureaucratic elements to the package. We are told in this report that access to the program of assistance will be conditional on participating heavy engineering establishments demonstrating that they and relevant unions have agreed to significant positive changes in work practices. In other words, government assistance, taxpayer assistance, will be provided as long as the employers and the unions have agreed to changes in work practices. The point that concerns us is that this is a very long route to the point which has to be reached where employers and employees directly involved in an enterprise devote themselves to removing any restrictive work practices which are impeding the efficiency of that business. The intrusion of committees, and sets of rules which will be drawn up by committees, into this process shows a lack of understanding about the urgency of the task facing Australia if we are to meet the very heavy international competition we face in this and other areas. I believe that the Department is making a very useful contribution to the development of industry in Australia. There is no more vital or difficult task. My quarrel would be that it needs to be done in a way which acknowledges more the urgency of the problems that we face. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(5.10) —We are debating the annual report of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. Senator Button, who is the Minister in charge of this Department, is a very energetic and effective Minister. I have congratulated him in this place previously on his initiative in the steel industry in particular and, to a lesser degree, his initiative in respect of the car plan. Having said that, I point out that Australia faces a critical problem. Australia is essentially a Third World country in that only something like 30 per cent of our exports are manufactured goods whereas, by contrast, the manufactured goods of most Western countries make up something like 80 per cent of their exports. We have an enormous gap to make up, and we are not going to lift our performance, we are not going to get out of the Third World status, unless we dramatically, quickly and urgently reform our manufacturing industries. My criticism of this report is that it does not contain any real strategy to get industries across the broad spectrum of manufacturing in this country internationally competitive. There is no real Government initiative which says: `We have to have our industries export orientated, we have to get them to a stage where they can be as efficient as any industries in the world and look on the whole world as their market'. The Government could adopt some initiatives simply and readily and at very little expense. For instance, employees could be involved in industry, and there is no doubt that employee share ownership is a very important part of that initiative. If we can give employees a slice of the action, if they can be part of and have an equity in an organisation, of course they will be more involved. The Government is paying out money to various industries in the form of bounties. Why could not the Government make those bounty payments to specific industries conditional upon these companies offering, say, 8 per cent of their capital for purchase by their employees? That would not cost the Government anything. It would just be a condition of the Government paying a bounty to specific industries. If this were done, we would be able to get a very important initiative off the ground without any cost to the Government. Something has to be done as a matter of urgency in industry. It is not that this requires greater effort by Senator Button, but I am afraid that we have to see more action in critical areas. A fundamental criticism I make relates to the great imbalance in what the Government is paying to industries in the form of bounty. I notice that the heavy engineering industry is going to receive $269,000 whereas the bounty for ships is something like $38m. One should look at these various payments-I could give other examples-to see whether we are getting value for money on the basis of one criterion only, and that is the export potential of those industries. If the Government assesses its financial assistance to industry on the basis of whether the assistance will increase the export ability of those industries, the money the Government is spending will be well invested. Briefly, a lot has been done by Senator Button, and I do not criticise him. However, an enormous amount still has to be done. We have to have a rifle shot approach. We have to select carefully the industries the Government assists on the basis of their export earning potential. As I say, we have to direct the assistance to those areas with rifle shot accuracy. We will not get our industries efficient until we involve employees. Let the Government do something about employee share ownership now. It could tie such a scheme to grants to industries and such an initiative would cost it nothing at all. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.14) —While the sectorial objectives stated in the annual report of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce might be very admirable and laudable, there is really nothing in the report that relates to the performance of the Department of how effectively the objectives that have been set for the Department are being met. The report is strong on policy issues and it is critical of the performance of industry. Yet there is no self-analysis in this document as to how well the Department is performing in relation to achieving its own objectives. So what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander. I think it is about time that a little self-analysis was undertaken by government departments and instrumentalities so that we can see how well they are performing. What are the yardsticks? There is none. What are the performance measurements? There is none. The report is great on platitudes-there are plenty of them. The report says that we must export more. I remind the Senate that there is fear and anger in the community about a lack of Government action to get confidence back into the country. We will not get confidence back into the country by taking away jobs in the textile industry. We have to offer carrots. We have to offer some sort of incentives and not just take jobs away from people in decentralised areas. Anti-business activity permeates everything the Government does nowadays. We are seeing more regulation, more fringe benefits taxes and more attacks on small business, but the Government is not doing enough to get business overheads down. If business overheads are being increased, how can industry prosper and expand? With an inflation rate higher than that of our domestic trading partners, how can we continue to export in the long term, bearing in mind that the effects of devaluation will be very short? I remind the Senate that business in Australia is really very small in a world of large businesses. Business does not mind what the rules are, so long as everybody abides by them and so long as they are clear. It does not mind so long as there are long term objectives and we do not have the U-turns on which the Australian Labor Party has been so strong. One of the features of the Labor Party Administration has been the corruption of public standards. This has been one of the worst features of its reign. I remind honourable senators that an Austrade exhibition is being shown today in King's Hall. The exhibition is quite good and it urges Australians to be more conscious of the need to export. In fact, appropriately displayed on one side of the exhibition is a list of the achievements of Austrade-what it is trying to achieve and what it is doing to help export industries. I acknowledge that Austrade has made a significant contribution in this respect. At the head of one list is railway equipment. I remind the Senate of the sad story of the involvement of Australian National Industries Ltd in a Hong Kong contract. That contract worth $70m, in which Austrade says it has played a significant part, is at risk because of union thuggery. The Government is not prepared to tackle head on this major problem-a problem which will escalate into the loss of 500 jobs in Victoria. The Government plays the platitudes but it avoids the hard issues involved in trying to overcome one or two unions which are threatening this valuable contract and the jobs of Australians. What has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) had to say? He has stated that Australia can no longer afford strikes if it is to be a successful manufacturing exporter. What is the Minister doing in relation to his own State, the threat of the loss of jobs and the loss of this important contract? This matter is more important than just putting up platitudes in King's Hall. I believe that this country can no longer afford this sort of luxury if it is going to be a successful manufacturing exporter. We just cannot afford the luxury of sitting here and doing nothing about the thuggery that is going on in respect of ANI. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(5.20) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Australian Delegation to the United Nations is to be complimented on the arduous task it undertakes of dotting i's and crossing t's on numerous resolutions and debates in the United Nations forum, particularly when those votes reflect a growing sense of independence and a realisation that Australian interests need to be served, in concert with the interests of our neighbours in this region, rather than merely following the interests of others. I would like to comment briefly on the nuclear and disarmament issues mentioned in the 1985 report, particularly in relation to resolutions calling for a comprehensive test ban. The Australia-New Zealand resolution was accepted in the 1985 report, but I question Australia's abstention from the first of two Mexican resolutions which called for the comprehensive test ban and a moratorium in the meantime while that test ban is put in place. Australians who understand the urgency for a comprehensive test ban and who support the Government's hard work toward that end cannot understand the Government's negative attitude towards a moratorium. The Soviet moratorium has now been in place since 6 August 1985 and at the time this resolution was made in October last year it had been in place for a couple of months. I think the Soviets' good intentions had already been proved to some extent. That moratorium has now been extended three times. I believe Australia should be using its influence on the United States in whatever way possible to ensure that the United States joins in the moratorium that has been put in place by the Soviets. Unfortunately the United States seems to be not the least bit interested in a comprehensive test ban because of its adherence to the strategic defence initiative, which will require an unprecedented number of nuclear tests. The SDI, which has also been dubbed `a stupid damned idea' or `Self-destruction Incorporated', will require an enormous number of nuclear tests, the like of which we have not yet seen in this nuclear age. The Australian delegation has changed its position very slightly in the current session of the United Nations by one jot. Last week it supported the Mexican resolution as far as the comprehensive test ban part was concerned, but recorded a reservation calling for all States to join in the Soviet moratorium. In this respect I find the Australian delegation's performance wanting. An immediate moratorium on nuclear testing would be a clear demonstration of good intentions. This is sadly lacking on the part of the United States and, of course, on the part of France, which is as intransigent as ever where nuclear testing is concerned. Is Australia happy to be seen to be acquiescing to those countries who continue nuclear testing programs? That is how our behaviour is being interpreted. We are not using every opportunity that we might in putting a stop to the wasteful and immoral programs of nuclear testing. This lack of political guts is extremely disappointing. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —The time allotted under Sessional Orders for the consideration of Govern- ment Papers has expired. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts I present a progress report on the Committee's inquiry into the education of gifted and talented children. I seek leave to move a motion. Leave granted. Senator COLSTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Honourable senators will recall that this matter was referred to the Standing Committee on 17 October last year. The Committee advertised for submissions in the national Press at the end of October 1985. It also wrote to selected organisations involved in the education of the gifted and asked for submissions. To date, 166 submissions and 33 Committee documents have been received. These include submissions from all State governments and the Commonwealth Government. Public hearings have now been held in all mainland State capital cities. The Committee intends to conclude its program of public hearings in Hobart on 16 December. The Committee is grateful to all those who have made submissions or given oral evidence. On behalf of the Committee I should also thank the teachers and students of the six schools the Committee has visited in the course of the inquiry. Although the Committee has now almost completed its program of hearings and visits, work on this reference has not proceeded as quickly as I might have wished. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the Committee has had a heavy work load during the past twelve months. It has tabled five reports since last October. This has necessarily limited the amount of time available for hearings and other work on the inquiry into the education of gifted and talented children. The titles of these five reports are listed in the report I have tabled today. Secondly, not all members of the Committee have been able to attend hearings despite our best efforts to schedule these at convenient times. This factor delayed the start of the public hearing program. In the Committee's progress report, mention is made of difficulties sometimes experienced in obtaining a quorum for hearings. In the report, I indicate that I regard the committee system to be one of the strengths of the Australian Senate. If committees begin to suffer, however, because senators cannot make the time available to attend public and private hearings, that strength to which I have referred will soon wane. The Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts has, in effect, operated for the major part of this year with only five active members, three from the Opposition and two from the Government. This is clearly unsatisfactory and is a matter which should be of concern to all honourable senators and to the Government. The Committee appreciates that a final report should be made as soon as possible. It expects to table the final report on this important subject in the 1987 autumn sittings of the Parliament. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Reid)-by leave-agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name for the disallowance of the Radiation (Amendment) Ordinance be adjourned for five sitting days after today. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- I bring before the Parliament today a Bill to enact an integral part of this Labor Government's tax reform package-a long overdue reform to provide fairness and equity for all Australians. The Australia Card program will play a significant role in this Government's fight against tax avoidance and evasion, and social security fraud. It will help ensure that every Australian pays their fair share of tax while ensuring that benefits from the welfare system go properly to those in need. By helping to restore fairness and equity to the Australian taxation system, and to the social welfare system, we will help restore public confidence in the integrity of those systems. The Australia Card is essential to the achievement of that integrity. At the same time, this Government wishes to ensure that we maintain a proper balance between the need to protect the interests of the community, and the need to preserve the rights to privacy and civil liberties of the individual. Therefore this Bill establishes a data protection agency-DPA-an independent watchdog body which will review, establish, and maintain guidelines for the operation of the Australia Card program and provide individuals with a fast and efficient appeals mechanism in the event of complaints of a breach of those guidelines. The Data Protection Agency will also administer privacy safeguards in relation to the protection of personal information contained in government computer data banks. Those safeguards will be the most broad ranging and effective ever seen in this country. The Bill provides for penalties in the event of the misuse or abuse of the Australia Card, the Australia Card Register, and the national births, deaths, and marriages register. Honourable senators should in particular note that severe penalties will apply to those individuals or organisations who, unauthorised by legislation, demand the production of an Australia Card. Such demands will be illegal. Privacy legislation will also be introduced into Parliament this session to support and underwrite the privacy protections provided in this Bill. But privacy is not a one way street. Irrefutably, citizens need to be protected against abuse of their privacy by Government. But equally citizens need to be protected against others who cynically hide behind the mantle of privacy to create false identities, and thus defraud the community. We need to achieve a realistic balance to protect the interests of both citizens and community. The Bill further provides for a national register of births, deaths and marriages. Not only will this facilitate identity checks to ensure the integrity of the Australia Card, but it will end one of the chief means of creating false identities in this society. Just as, in the past, different State railway gauges hampered national communications in Australian society, so today the State births, deaths and marriage registers, neither computerised nor linked with each other, hamper the national fight against crime, corruption and fraud. By the creation of a national BDM register we will plug this major gap in our defences. The Government believes in the basic principle that people should contribute to the tax system according to their ability to pay, and take from the social security system only their just entitlement. By providing a fair system-whether in tax or social welfare-we underwrite equality. The Australia Card Bill provides for the detailed operation of the program in respect of the Australia Card register and the Australia Card itself. Parts I and II of the Bill establish the Health Insurance Commission as the administering authority of the Australia Card, and deal with the issue of the card. The legislation enshrines the principle that no one will be required to carry his or her Australia Card at all times, and that he or she will only be required to produce it for the uses explicitly authorised in the Bill. This, along with the prohibitions contained in the Bill, will ensure that the Australia Card does not develop into an internal passport, as some critics have claimed. However, if a person wants to voluntarily use the Australia Card as proof of identity then that person is free to do so. Much of the detail of Part II of the Bill derives from the Government's desire to make the administration of the Australia Card as flexible as possible and to cater as much as possible for individual needs. A provision for prescribed representatives is included so that a person may act on behalf of another who because of age, infirmity, or other condition cannot easily comply with Australia Card requirements. It will also allow parents to hold cards on behalf of their children. Special provision has been made in the Bill to cater for persons who are unable to attend an interview for an Australia Card, for example the bedridden. In such cases field officers will be employed to visit these people in their homes. Similar provision will be made for those in remote areas. Further, where the taking of a photograph would cause extreme distress, either to the person or to the person's family, the Bill provides in rare cases for an exemption of that requirement. Part III and the attached schedule one deal with the Australia Card Register, and I will address the issues raised by this part when dealing further with privacy and civil liberty matters. A key aim of the Australia Card Bill is to provide a major weapon to counter tax evasion, as set out in Part IV. The most conservative estimate put forward by the Australian Taxation Office of revenue gains under the Australia Card program is in the vicinity of $724m a year once the program is fully operational-over $700m, and that does not take account of additional taxes and penalties which would arise where omissions of income have been detected, nor does it take account of amendments to prior returns. Even the Joint Select Committee of an Australia Card considered that those two factors, together with an acknowledgment that the estimates of evasion and therefore the estimates of benefits were extremely low, could more than double the revenue gains to the Government from this important piece of legislation. That tax evasion exists is an indisputable fact. Explicit and quite specific information on tax evasion is contained in the 1984-85 annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation. In the financial year ending June 1984, 57,000 taxpayers were found to have understated their income by a total of over $470m. In the following year nearly 66,000 taxpayers understated their income by $472m. If these amounts can be detected through the efforts of the Tax Office without the assistance which will undoubtedly be provided by the Australia Card, is it any wonder that estimates of tax savings under the Australia Card program of $4.1 billion over the first ten-year period are considered conservative? With total costs over the same period of $759m it is clearly ludicrous to assert that the program would not be cost effective. The people of Australia have a right to expect that the taxation system in this country reflects one of the principles held so dearly by them-that is, the right of everyone to a `fair go'. This was an approach fully endorsed by leading members of the Opposition, just over a year ago, before a cynical opportunism overcame their commitments to principle and rationality. The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Hunt, put it bluntly: ``The use of plastic cards for an effective means of identification would streamline the collection of tax revenue, imposing a greater accountability on that small minority of taxpayers who sought to evade their responsibilities to the community''. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) was equally enthusiastic. He stated: ``With the Government's white paper on tax reform recommending the introduction of I.D. Cards, there is now broad bi-partisan support for this measure. It should therefore be implemented.'' Another Opposition front bencher, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), put it more succinctly: ``We need a policeman to safeguard the public purse. A plastic policeman would be the most effective in preventing this abuse.'' The Australian people will no doubt want some explanation reconciling these strong statements of support by the National Party elite and their vote on this Bill. The Government has no such hypocrisies. In order to combat tax evasion the Bill before the House proposes that an Australia Card be produced to identify persons associated with the following transactions: Deposits and accounts with financial institutions; Investments; Income from certain trusts; Primary production income and rental income; Foreign remittances; Real estate transactions; Use of safety deposit boxes; Shares in public companies; Dealing in futures contracts; Employment; and Prescribed payments. By requiring production of an Australia Card for these purposes the Taxation Officer has an immediate means of linking all sources of income to the one number. Such a link is essential to the success of the Australia Card program. One spin-off of this enhanced pursuit of the money trail will be an improved assault on corporate and organised crime. Although former Royal Commissioner Frank Costigan has asserted that an identity card would not have assisted his enquiries into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, I find this difficult to reconcile with his Royal Commission report. It stated that: ``Criminals seek to possess wealthy homes, land, expensive cars, yachts, and incur high living expenses . . . they may pay for much by cash; but ultimately . . . they find the normal financial institutions far more convenient and seemingly no less safe to use . . . ``. . . this leads to the creation of large accounts with many taxation vouchers. Once located, those vouchers provide a fertile source of intelligence to the investigator.'' Mr Costigan was so alarmed by the extent of abuse of the banking system that he recommended that each person applying to open a bank account should provide a statement of full name, name under which the person was born, date and place of birth, any other name used between the date of birth and the date of the statement, whether the person is, or has been, a taxpayer, and if appropriate the name under which he lodged his last return, the place of lodgment and his tax file number. The Australia Card will provide precisely such an identity link. Mr Justice Stewart, when conducting the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, also recommended that banks require greater proof of identity. The bottom line is that two royal commissioners recommended for one reason or another, and in one way or another, that identity procedures should be tightened, indeed must be tightened, to assist in the fight against organised crime. The second major purpose of the Australia Card is to provide a weapon to combat fraud in the social welfare area. During its term of office the Government has already taken steps to attack various opportunities for welfare abuse. The recent budget initiatives are an example. The results of the measures taken since March 1983 can be seen in the frequency with which cases of social security fraud are being brought before the courts. It is difficult to establish the extent of welfare fraud, but a number of specific cases are notorious. To take one recent example, an individual was convicted of operating a scheme whereby he collected over 50 separate unemployment benefit cheques each fortnight. In just over two years this man robbed the social security system and thus the taxpayer of nearly $400,000. The Joint Select Committee recognised this problem. It stated: ``While the Committee accepts the Department's difficulty in establishing the amount of social security fraud due to false identities, it believes that there is still significant fraud within this area.'' There is no doubt that as we continue to uncover the cheats and bring them to justice, new ways of defrauding the system will be tried by a new generation of cheats and we have to protect ourselves against that. However difficult it is to measure accurately, we do have a problem with fraud in the social security area, and Opposition front benchers have seen the Australia Card as a valuable response. As the honourable member for Richmond and shadow Minister for Social Security, put it: ``Another major benefit (from the Australia Card) would be a reduction of fraud affecting government outlays, especially social welfare payments . . .'' The Australia Card is a major step in further enhancing the integrity of the social security system-a process this Government has been committed to since taking office. A further but indirect impact of the Australia Card would be its deterrent effect on illegal immigration. It is estimated that there are some 60,000 illegal immigrants in this country-people who have entered this country contrary to our laws, an affront to all those who patiently wait to enter Australia through the proper procedures. Because these immigrants are here illegally they are often exploited by unscrupulous employers, they often escape the tax system, and they often make demands on the social security and Medicare systems. By making employment more difficult, by placing firmer controls on financial transactions, and by protecting the welfare and Medicare systems from abuse, the Australia Card program will act as a major deterrent to illegal immigration. No one now doubts that the Australia Card will check tax evasion; no one doubts that it will contribute to the integrity of our social security system; no one doubts that it will be a useful weapon in deterring illegal immigration; no one doubts that by facilitating the pursuit of the money trail it will provide an invaluable instrument against corporate and organised crime. Any doubts that people do have about the Australia Card relate primarily to whether the cost will be too high in terms of privacy and civil liberties. I wish now to turn to this part of the legislation and that concern. All controversies over civil liberties involves questions of striking a balance: a balance between the benefits to the community of some proposed course of action-usually governmental-and the possible threat to civil liberties posed by that course of action. I would point out that Australians are already living with a range of identity systems. As we grow up most of us acquire a driving licence. As time goes on each Australian acquires a range of identity cards and papers: Student identity cards, credit cards, Medicare card, membership cards, security clearance cards, passport. Those who rail against the Australia Card proposal as an attack on civil liberties overlook these fundamental facts of modern life. Nor do they note that practically every democracy in continental Europe requires identity cards or unique identity numbers of its citizens. Such blurred thinking represents a failure to distinguish between identity papers per se, and the uses to which they are put. Let me make a few more pertinent observations. Already the tax office has comprehensive powers under the Income Tax Assessment Act to seek details of individuals, in some cases without these individuals being aware of an investigation. Many commercial enterprises keep detailed records of an individual's credit worthiness. Sharing of information between retailers and credit worthiness companies has been a long standing practice. Information obtained by some companies is sold to other companies interested in sending out unsolicited material. Banks appearing before the Joint Select Committee indicated that they routinely double checked information given on loan applications with other banks-without the customer's approval. Most people do not know what information is kept on them by private companies, and certainly do not have an opportunity to correct that information. Absolute privacy does not then exist. The Australia Card program recognises this, but also begins the task of protecting privacy from abuse. Let us be clear about what information is and is not displayed on the Australia Card, and more importantly is or is not recorded on the Australia Card Register. The Australia Card itself will have on it only the given names and surname of the person; and Australia Card number; the expiry date of the card; a photograph of the person; and a signature. No other identifying information will be contained on the card. Slightly different information will be shown on the cards of persons under the age of 18 years, adults who have someone else managing their affairs, and visitors staying more than six weeks. Children's cards will for example show date of birth, while visitors cards will show ineligibility or otherwise for employment and or medicare benefits. However, while accepting that the information on the card itself may be innocuous enough, there has been much conjecture-much of it ill-informed-about precisely what details will be held on the Register. Indeed the outlandish allegations made on this point have fluctuated wildly from keeping information on everything from religious beliefs to political allegiance. It has never been suggested that employers will be able to check on the medical history of prospective employees through the Australia Card. This is totally wrong. Let me remind the Senate that no private agency has access to the Register, no government agency has access except for a narrow range of specified uses, and that no cross-matching is possible other than that which already occurs. The Australia Card Register will contain nothing other than identifying data such as surname and given names, date of birth, sex, residential and postal addresses, changes of address, any other name by which the person is entitled to be known and wishes to use, and other basic identifying information as listed in schedule one of the Bill. The Register will also contain administrative details necessary to assist the authority in its management of the program, such as where and when cards were issued, details of any replacement cards, details of amendments made to information held on the Register, where and when the changes were made, and by whom. The Register will not, I stress not contain information about such things as medical history, credit history, marital status, religious beliefs, edu- cation, employment history, income or voting intentions. To give further personal re-assurance, all individuals will have access to the information about them which is held on the register, as provided for in Part V of the Bill. Access to the Australia Card register will be limited to the user agencies-the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security, and the Health Insurance Commission-and that access will be limited to the validation of identity for the purpose of carrying out their departmental or agency role. Again, this is set out in Part V of the Bill. Furthermore, every access and every attempted access by each department, agency, and individual will be logged. That means every single access, Mr President. In conjunction with the establishment of the Australia Card Register we will establish a national births, deaths and marriages register, to be kept quite separate from the Australia Card Register. The co-operation of the States is vital to the establishment of the births, deaths, and marriages register. The purposes of the national BDM is to combine information held by State and Territory registries of births, deaths and marriages which is vitally important in establishing identity for the Australia Card. The most important function of such a streamlined system is the linking of records or events such as births and deaths, so that birth certificates for people who have died cannot be obtained for fraudulent purposes. Access to the births, deaths and marriages register will be tightly restricted, and information from it will be used for the following purposes only: By the Health Insurance Commission to check the validity of information on the Australia Card register; by the Department of Foreign Affairs to check the validity of passport information; by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the extraction of aggregated statistical data and the classification of causes of death; and by the Australian Institute of Health for particular epidemiological studies. Information held on the BDM will remain the property of the State or Territory concerned, and no State will have access to another State's information without prior agreement. Apart from the sanctions provided in the Bill for breaches of the legislation, a special body-the Data Protection Agency-is created to ensure that individual privacy is not abused. As set out in Part VII of the Bill, the role of the DPA will be to: Review decisions by the Health Insurance Commission in its role as the Australia Card Authority; issue guidelines to ensure that information kept on the register is accurate and confidential; enquire into complaints that the guidelines have been breached; supervise the way in which the Authority keeps the register created from births, deaths and marriages registers; publish a record of all Commonwealth databases containing personal information; research and monitor developments in computer technology and its effects on privacy; undertake educational programs to promote the protection of individual privacy; and perform functions to be conferred upon it by the privacy Bill. The DPA will consist of a president and two commissioners who will be appointed by the Governor-General on a full time basis. There will be power to appoint associate commissioners on a part time basis and there will be an advisory committee drawn from the community to advise the agency on which consumer interests will be represented. With these protections, I believe the Australia Card achieves the necessary balance between the protection of individual privacy, and the protection of the community from exploitation through false identities. I can only echo the comment of Professor Whalan of the Australian National University: ``Perhaps one irony would be that if we do have an Australia Card with all those protections . . . our privacy may be better protected than it is now.'' Let me finally rebut the tax file identification system, a kind of soft and fuzzy alternative identification system to the Australia Card, advanced by the majority of the Joint Select Committee. In its bid to fudge its response to the Australia Card, the opposition has toyed with this notion. But let us look at the crux of the tax evasion and social welfare problem. Tax evasion is caused to a large extent by the Tax Office's inability to link all sources of income-that is, to identify persons in receipt of income from more than one source. Likewise welfare fraud is caused to a large extent by the Department of Social Security's inability to fully verify identify to ensure that the identity of a person in receipt of welfare benefits is in fact the true and only identity under which that person operates. In other words, the problem is created by those agencies not having the means of establishing correct identity. The tax file number option does not solve that problem because it is not based on a secure document system. Under the tax file identification system it was suggested that, to allocate numbers, those who had paid tax continuously for five years should be considered genuine identities, while all other taxpayers and persons who did not possess a tax file number should verify their identity to the same level of integrity as that of the Australia Card program. Two glaring problems immediately become apparent. First, the Australian Taxation Office itself readily admits that the tax file number was never intended as a unique identification number and is flawed by numerous false identities in the system. Second, the lack of an effective identity document removes from the users the ability to ensure that the number presented is in fact the rightful number of the bearer. Let us not be fooled by the proposition that tax file numbers could be upgraded to the same level of integrity as that of the Australia Card, and that it could in some way achieve a system of equal integrity. If the system is to commence with false identities-as is the current opposition suggestion-and if it is to be based purely on a number without any secure documentation, it cannot be equated with the Australia Card program and it cannot achieve the same level of integrity. To verify a person's tax file number it would be necessary to undertake precisely the same identity verification procedures as are proposed for the Australia Card, which in turn would mean employing the same number of people to administer the same system for the same purposes. To take the logical further step of issuing a tax file number card would simply be to create an Australia Card by another name. Let there be no mistake, whether an identification system is called an Australia Card program or a tax file number, its purpose, use and need for integrity is identical. However, because the integrity and security of the proposed tax file system would erode significantly over time due to lack of a secure card-or any secure document to tie a person with a number-the benefits would most definitely not be the same. On a comparative basis, the Australia Card program will return $5.37 for every dollar spent-using the extremely conservative estimates as discussed previously-while the tax file system would return $3.69 for every dollar spent. Over the first ten years the Australia Card program will provide net total benefits of $4.7 billion, after costs of $759 million. The benefit figure includes gross benefits of $4.1 billion in taxation revenue, and $1.4 billion in savings by the Health Insurance Commission and by the Departments of Social Security and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The cost figure includes $544m in establishment and operation costs of the Australia Card Authority, $27m for establishment of the Data Protection Agency, $49m for the establishment of the National births, deaths and marriages register, and a total of $137m in establishment and operation costs over the first ten years for the Australian Taxation Office, the Health Insurance Commission-for Medicare purposes-the Department of Social Security and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Detailed discussions have been held with the private sector. While it has been difficult to estimate precisely the costs to that sector, it is generally agreed that such costs will not be as significant as some critics originally predicated and that those costs arise as much for new tax requirements by the Australian Taxation Office for wider reporting as from the Australia Card itself. Indeed it is generally expected that there would be some longer term gains in streamlining procedures. In conclusion, I believe this Bill has achieved the necessary balance between the needs of the private individual and the needs of the community. The savings to revenue in taxation and social welfare are too significant to be denied; the spin-off benefits in deterring illegal immigration and providing, through a surer money trail, a further weapon against corporate and organised crime, are unarguable. The measures to limit the use of the card and prevent bureaucratic abuse of privacy are comprehensive, pioneering, and respond to the real concerns of civil libertarians. I would urge senators to read the Bill with care, and not to reject it on the basis of a luddite distrust of technology, or on the basis of unexamined assumptions about the threat to privacy. For those who might be tempted by a facile opportunism let me say only this: It is inevitable that this country will establish an identification system before the century is out. If we are to secure the full advantages of the system for our people, and if we are to avoid it sneaking in the back door without proper privacy protection, we should seize the opportunity now. In the words of the present leader of the opposition I ask the Senate to give the Australia Card ``Favourable Consideration.'' Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) 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. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Second Readings Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.29) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- PRIVACY BILL 1986 Mr President, the purpose of the Privacy Bill, and the associated Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill, is to regulate the collection, handling and use by Commonwealth departments and agencies of information about individuals so as to provide them with a level of privacy protection that is consistent with efficient government administration. The Privacy Bill will establish a comprehensive set of rules regulating such dealings with personal information and provide an effective means for monitoring compliance with the rules. The rules will, however, mesh with and avoid overlapping existing legislation which coincidentally protects privacy, such as the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. At common law there is no enforceable right to privacy as such. There are, however, various existing legal rights that protect aspects of what are generally regarded as individual privacy. Thus the existing law on defamation, breach of confidence, copyright and passing off can be used to prevent unauthorised circulation of personal information or comment in various circumstances. In recent times there have been enormous developments in technology for processing information, providing immense opportunities for building up and using information on individuals. This has focused attention on the need to provide more comprehensive measures for protecting privacy against the threat posed by misuse of this technology. This has been recognised during the development of the Australia Card by the decision to establish the Data Protection Agency. With the greater range of services being provided by Government, the greater is the accumulation of personal information about individuals. More than anything else, the capacity of modern computers to search and process information offers the greatest potential for invasion of personal privacy by misuse. The greater the accumulations of personal information, the greater are the possibilities of inaccurate material being included amongst such information. Decisions based on wrong information are oppressive to the individual concerned and hinder efficient administration. Internationally, guidelines for the enactment of legislation protecting personal privacy in the processing of information have been developed by the Council of Europe and by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of which Australia is a member. Most European countries, the USA and Canada have enacted privacy protection legislation. In December 1984, Australia formally signified its intention to introduce legislation along the lines of the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data. The Government has been giving detailed consideration for some time to comprehensive information privacy protection legislation. In December 1983 a very detailed report and recommendations were received from the Law Reform Commission following a reference to the Commission in 1976. The recommendations included draft legislation which drew on the OECD Guidelines. The scheme of the Bill is to enunciate a series of rules, called Information Privacy Principles, which are based on the Principles recommended by the Law Reform Commission in its draft legislation. They will apply to Commonwealth Departments and agencies to the same extent that the FOI Act applies to them. Privacy complaints against security and intelligence agencies, which are not subject to the FOI Act and thus are exempt from this Bill, will be able to be dealt with by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Under the Principles, Commonwealth agencies must have a lawful purpose for collecting personal information, and the purpose must be related to the functions or activities of the collector. An agency collecting personal information from the information-subject must see that the latter is generally aware of such things as the purpose for which the information is being collected and, if such is the case, the fact that collection is authorised or required by law. The Principles require agencies, when both collecting and retaining information, to see that it is relevant to the purpose of collection, is up to date and is complete. Before using any information, they must also check its accuracy. `Personal information' is widely defined to include anything-fact, true or false, or opinion-that reasonably identifies the information-subject. However all the Principles are concerned only with personal information in a record or collected for inclusion in a record or a publication, so unrecorded conversation, for example, is not covered. The Principles require agencies to store information records securely against loss or misuse. If asked, they are to provide information about the types of personal information they hold. Subject to FOI Act exemptions they are to provide access to them if sought by the information-subject and to make corrections for accuracy, relevance and completeness. Subject to certain specific exceptions, notably to law enforcement and preservation of life, information that was sought from the information-subject may not be used for a purpose or disclosed to a person other than with the agreement of the information-subject. Commonwealth agencies will be required to comply with these Principles. A breach of the Principles will be deemed by the Bill to be an `interference with privacy'. Under the Bill the Data Protection Agency to be established by the Australia Card Bill will undertake the functions of investigating alleged interferences with privacy, attempting to resolve the allegations by conciliation and, failing that, reporting to the Minister where it finds that there has been such an interference. The DPA's powers in conducting investigations will be those prescribed in the Australia Card Bill. The DPAs investigation and reporting functions will be exercisable not only on complaint but also of its own motion. Remedies such as injunction and declaration, will be able to be sought against interferences with privacy to the extent that they are available under existing law. However the Government has decided that, at this initial stage, it should not be possible to recover damages for interferences with privacy by agencies. Nevertheless, when reporting a finding that an interference with privacy has occurred, the DPA will be able to make a recommendation for compensation to an individual affected by the interference. To help agencies achieve compliance with the Principles, the DPA will be able to give advisory opinions, issue guidelines and examine proposed enactments for privacy implications. Where an agency believes that a current or proposed practice that may breach the Principles is nevertheless important to its operations, it will be able to seek from the DPA a determination allowing the practice to continue or go ahead without risk of its being found to be an interference with privacy. Such a determination may be granted only if the DPA is satisfied that the public interest in permitting the practice substantially outweighs the public interest in adherence to the Principles. I mentioned earlier that the law of confidence is an important existing means of protecting privacy in some circumstances. The Bill includes some limited extensions of the law of confidence recommended by the Law Reform Commission which will further enhance privacy protection. The companion Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill includes amendments of the FOI Act to extend the opportunities for access to personal affairs records by record-subjects and establish the requirement for record-subjects to be alerted to requests for access to those records by others. The proposals contained in the Privacy Bill and the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill are expected to have a direct cost to the Government of $800,000 in a full-year operation. International instruments to which I have referred, overseas legislation and the Law Reform Commission's report recognise that there are important interests that compete with the right to privacy, including effective Government administration, law enforcement and free flow of information. The Government considers that the Privacy Bill, applying as it does to Commonwealth agencies, strikes a fair balance between the right of the individual to privacy against the equally important concern of the individual, as a taxpayer, that the Commonwealth administration is not overburdened. What will be achieved by the Privacy Bill is a comprehensive code of information privacy protection standards. It will be the first such legislation anywhere in Australia. It will also provide a practical means for persons who have been adversely affected by a failure to comply with those standards to seek redress. I commend the Bill to the Senate. PRIVACY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1986 Mr President, this Bill is a companion measure to the Privacy Bill which I have just introduced. The main amendment made by this Bill is to the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to introduce `reverse FOI' for personal affairs documents. That is, where documents requested under FOI include a record of personal affairs of a person other than the requestor, the record-subject must, if possible, be consulted and given an opportunity to seek exemption from disclosure to the requestor of that record. Another amendment to the FOI Act will slightly restrict the circumstances in which a ground of exemption from access can be used to prevent access to a record of personal affairs by the record-subject. Otherwise this Bill makes essentially machinery amendments to ensure that privacy complaints wrongly directed to other agencies are transferred to the Data Protection Agency for investigation under the Privacy Bill without inconvenience to the complaint. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) 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. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Second Readings Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.32) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- OVERSEAS STUDENTS CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1986 The purpose of the Bill is to amend section 4 of the Overseas Students Charge Act 1979, to extend the charge liability to overseas students who enrol in government and private secondary schools, and courses at TAFE level institutions for which Commonwealth funding is received. The intention is to recoup a proportion of the cost to the Commonwealth of supporting places for overseas students at Australian education institutions. Charge liability is also extended to include diplomatic and consular representatives, their staff and dependants, who undertake tertiary courses. The further purpose of the Bill is to amend section 6 of the principal Act to fix the charge rates for the 1987 academic year. The new levels of charge are indicated in the Bill. As foreshadowed in 1985, the increase in the overseas students charge proposed in the Bill, for university and advanced education level courses, raises the contribution of a new student or one who commenced the course after 1 January 1986 to 45 per cent of the full average cost of a place. In respect of a student who commenced the course before 1 January 1986, the charge represents 32 per cent of the full average cost, or an increase of 15 per cent over the 1986 level. The amount of the overseas students charge will be reduced by $250, the amount of the higher education administration charge to be payable by all higher education students in respect of the enrolment. TAFE overseas students who commenced their courses prior to 1 January 1987 will pay 32 per cent of the average Commonwealth contribution to TAFE costs, and new TAFE students will pay 45 per cent. All secondary school overseas students will pay a flat rate of $300. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present an explanatory memorandum to the Bill. OVERSEAS STUDENTS CHARGE COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1986 The purpose of this Bill is to vary the categories of students exempt from the overseas students charge. This is effected by including in the Overseas Students Charge Collection Act 1979, through inserting section 4a, those categories of students who are exempt from the charge. The current exemption provision relating to a postgraduate student who is the holder of a scholarship to the value of at least $3,500 per annum awarded by an Australian institution is now limited to a person who has been granted such a scholarship and commenced study before 1 January 1987. It is also proposed to withdraw the charge exemption provision for a postgraduate student who is the holder of a scholarship awarded by the Australian-American Educational Foundation. The proposed extension of the charge, as from 1 January 1987, to postgraduate students who are awarded a scholarship by an Australian institution on or after 1 January 1987, and to all Australian-American Educational Foundation scholarship holders, is expected to raise approximately $1.2m in 1986-87. This Bill proposes to provide exemption from the secondary level charge to those overseas students entering Australian secondary schools under reciprocal exchange agreements between Australian and overseas secondary schools and organisations. This will facilitate the continued participation of Australian students in these important exchange schemes. This proposed exemption from the charge will amount to a reduction in revenue, which would otherwise have been collected, of approximately $300,000 per annum. The further purpose of the Bill is to amend section 7 of the principal Act to restrict the capacity of a department or authority of the Commonwealth to discharge the liability of a student to whom that department or authority has granted a scholarship or like award, to postgraduate scholarship holders who commenced study before 1 January 1987. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the revised explanatory memoranda to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill continues the practice begun last sittings of combining amendments required to bounty and subsidy Acts in one omnibus Bill. In brief this Bill contains amendments to current bounty and subsidy Acts to- (1) amend the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980 to provide for a single cash limited bounty for all eligible vessels regardless of market destination; (2) give effect to the Budget announcement to reduce most bounty and subsidy rates in existing schemes by 20 per cent; and (3) make a number of technical amendments to the Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Act 1983 and the Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots) Act 1985 and to all bounty Acts in respect of the appointment of authorised officers. In this speech I will outline the amendments to the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980 and the amendments required as a consequence of the 20 per cent Budget cut in bounty rates. Details of the technical amendments to the various Acts are set out in the explanatory memorandum to this Bill which has been circulated. Part 2 of the Bill contains the proposed amendments to the Bounty (Ships) Act to provide for a single cash limited bounty for all vessels. Currently this industry's assistance arrangements involve a non-cash limited bounty for vessels built for the domestic market and a cash limited bounty for vessels built for export. The amendments proposed to those arrangements by this Bill are essential if the shipbuilding industry is to maintain and increase the significant gains in efficiency and competitiveness it has achieved over the last decade. The Government's 1984 decision to extend bounty payments to vessels built for export and to tighten registration requirements for bounty purposes hastened the pace of rationalisation in the industry begun in 1976. Australian shipbuilders have developed market niches for their products at home and abroad. Throughput has generally improved and some economies of scale have been achieved. Devaluation has also worked to the industry's advantage. These factors are reflected in burgeoning exports. Growth in exports, I am happy to report, has been remarkable since 1984-85 when only one vessel was built for export. More than 20 were being built for export last financial year. Contracts for further exports, worth over $120m, have either been finalised or are nearing finalisation. This success has created significant new demands for the export bounty which under the current annual cash limited approach would not allow many of these contracts to proceed. If this was to occur, the scale advantages accruing to the industry from increased throughput would be lost with resultant declines in competitiveness, investment and employment. The Government believes that the revised arrangements in this Bill will not only allow these contracts to proceed but will provide the industry with the stable and predictable environment it needs to further expand its export activity. Confidence in the future rate and availability of bounty is very important for this industry because of the long lead times in tendering and construction. Contract negotiations normally take between three and 12 months. Construction normally takes between nine and 24 months. The imposition of limits on expenditure at clause 7 is necessary to enable the Government to exercise appropriate budgetary restraints while at the same time continuing its commitment to the industry. Adoption of a reservation system for all vessels also proposed by clause 7 means that builders of domestic vessels, like builders of export vessels, will be required to reserve bounty funds from within the total allocation of $144m. All shipbuilders will be required to nominate a completion date, within this or the next two financial years, to be able to reserve funds. Failure to complete a vessel within six months of the nominated financial year will result in forfeiture of bounty eligibility. A roll-over provision is proposed if in any one of the financial periods the amount reserved exceeds the amount of bounty available for payment. This will allow the acceptance of reservation applications to be `rolled over' into the next period, if sufficient funds are available within the $144m. Another proposed change, reflecting the improved competitiveness of the industry, is that the rate of bounty for certain classes of vessels will be reduced from 20 per cent to 15 per cent on 1 January 1988. Only modifications and those vessels whose construction costs have not been reduced as a result of the Australian dollar's depreciation will attract the higher rate after that date. Tugs, bulk carriers, rig servicing and fishing vessels fall into this category. This change will require the Australian shipbuilders to further improve their efficiency. Improvements in efficiency will be aided by extending the orderly development provisions introduced in 1985 on an annual basis to all shipbuilders seeking bounty assistance. Under those provisions new entrants or those shipbuilders who were not building a bountiable vessel on 11 October 1984 had to demonstrate that their registration would not disrupt the market and negate the Government's objective to increase industry throughput and hence efficiency. As a result of those provisions the number of registered shipbuilders has reduced significantly, down from over 90 in 1984 to less than 30 today and throughput has increased significantly. The Government considers that the orderly development extension will lead to further efficiency gains and a reduction, in the longer term, in the level of support required by this industry. The other important amendments in the Bill are contained in Part 3 and Schedule 1. Schedule 1 contains the amendments to most current bounty and subsidy Acts reducing the rates in those Acts by 20 per cent as announced by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech on 19 August 1986. Omitting from Schedule 1 is the Bounty (Ships) Act, which is dealt with separately in Part 2 of this Bill. The rate for that bounty has been the subject of a phased reduction from 25 per cent. The rate payable from 1 July 1986 is now 20 per cent. I mentioned earlier that the bounty rate for certain classes of vessels will be reduced from 20 per cent to 15 per cent on 1 January 1988. This bounty was not subjected to the 20 per cent cut in the rate. Long lead times are the norm in this industry. To enable firms to quote with certainty it was determined in pre-Budget deliberations to make the reduction to the cash limit rather than the actual rate to be paid. Also omitted from the Schedule is the Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots) Act and the Nitrogenous and Phosphate Fertilizers Subsidy Act. This is for the reason that the reduction in the metal working machines bounty rate has already been effected by a Gazette notification made under that Act, a provision unique to that Act which does not appear in other bounty legislation. It is proposed that the fertilisers legislation which is not effected by the Budget rate cut be dealt with separately later in this sittings. I should make it clear that the reduction in bounty rates is a fiscal measure made to reduce Government expenditure and for no other reason. In framing the 1986-87 Budget the Government considered a wide range of options for reducing outlays and exercising expenditure restraint. It is the Government's view that such restraint should be borne by the community as a whole and a cut in the bounty and subsidy rates is just one of the measures needed to achieve the Government's expenditure objectives. Financial Impact Statement In relation to the revised shipbuilding bounty, clause 7 of the Bill sets an absolute limit of $144m on funds available for reservation purposes for bountiable ships in the period to 30 June 1989. Within this limit clause 7, restricts outlays to a maximum of $42m in the current financial year, and to $45m in the succeeding two years. Reserved but unexpended funds as at 30 June 1989 will be available as required up to 30 June 1991. The Budget cut of 20 per cent in bounty and subsidy rates is expected to save about $43m in bounty and subsidy payments in 1986-87 and is estimated to maintain total payments at about the same level in money terms as in the previous two financial years. Other measures is the bill have no direct financial impact. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the revised explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Haines, requesting a change in the membership of the Joint Statutory Committee on the National Crime Authority. Motion (by Senator Walsh)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Haines be discharged from further attendance on the Joint Statutory Committee on the National Crime Authority and that Senator Macklin be appointed a member of the Joint Committee. Consideration resumed from 17 November. GROUP A Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce Proposed expenditure, $353,853,000. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.34) —The Committee is continuing the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 in Committee and is considering the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. Unfortunately, the excessive roles of monetary policy are having a damaging effect on investment, although the large depreciation in the value of the Australian dollar has provided some change in relative prices. I wish to draw the Committee's attention to some interesting questions raised by an eminent economist, Professor Herman Black of the University of Sydney, when he asked: Is manufacturing investment being innovative or have overseas surveys been made as to market tendencies? Do we have on hand or within the plant local products available or acceptable to foreign investors and, if so, where? In other words, do we have the products that overseas customers want? Does the J-curve cause the Australian Council of Trade Unions ever to have second thoughts about wage claims, indexation and superannuation? Perhaps the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) should ponder the questions of a man who has been around for a long time. Unfortunately, so many of the sunrise industries that the Minister and the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) were saying a short time ago were going to be the saviour of the Australian economy, all too soon became sunset industries. They failed to ensure that existing firms adopted the appropriate new technology. They did not put enough emphasis on the uniqueness of design and on building quality products. Unfortunately, this Budget is a manifestation of the Government's policies, not of wealth creation, but of wealth distribution-the distribution of a reduction in living standards across the community. Therefore, this Budget is a Budget not of promise, but of disillusionment, of broken promises, from a government that fails to come to grips with many of the problems faced by our nation, particularly on the industry front. In fact, one of the big problems which we face as a potential exporter and which could seriously damage our standard of living is the high rate of domestic inflation, which is a major problem for-- Senator Walsh —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. We put up with a great gaggle of bores and egomaniacs during the second reading debate-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The point of order should not start with those comments. State your point of order, Senator Walsh. Senator Walsh —The point of order is that this is a second reading stage speech and not a Committee stage speech. The CHAIRMAN —Yes, I am watching that. Senator Watson, you have to relate your remarks to some part of the estimates of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. I can understand how your remarks might be so related but you should do so directly. Senator WATSON —I draw the Minister's attention to this question: Why have so few firms registered for participation in the tax incentive research and development area? This is an area which should hold great potential. Is it a concern that the business community has towards this Government's approach to research and development? I remind the Committee that perhaps part of the problem is a crowding-out effect that bodies such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the universities have. While they have some good results to their credit, they are very slow to bring on stream some productive processes to earn money. It is all very well to have the ideas, but for research and development incentives to have any effect we have to ensure that these ideas are put into practice very quickly rather than slowly. It is no good just lumbering the Australian taxpayers with higher taxes. The Minister himself has been very strong on telling his Labor Party audiences that the community will not tolerate increased taxes. What has he done? He has actually presided over the highest taxing government in the history of Australia. I believe that this segment of the Budget has the potential to lift our living standards, has the potential to get Australia out of this so-called problem, but the reliance is on a J-curve. Surely the J-curve has been discredited by now. Surveys by the Australian National University have shown that the long-awaited J-curve has failed to emerge. The tightening of monetary policy, which the Minister was so sensitive about in my remarks, is keeping business under the thumb. The growth figures are not emerging. The Government has a policy of high interest rates to protect the dollar, which has now been underwritten by the Reserve Bank of Australia. Under this sort of regime industry has no alternative but to stagnate. Lack of growth is one of the features of this Budget. It is a reflection on the failure of the previous Budget to take the hard decisions. In failing to take those hard decisions, the Government is now left with a Budget that is getting it into difficulties. It now has nowhere to go for industry policy. This is a sad reflection on a socialist government adopting socialist philosophies. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.41) —I wish to canvass three matters associated with the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. The first matter is the need for us to get into certain new areas of technology, such as material science and electronic communications. We particularly need to encourage the development of our own high technology industry so that in the long term we will not have to import such goods. A particular industry I have in mind and which has been fairly well canvassed is the space industry. The Technical Director of Hawker de Havilland Australia Pty Ltd has estimated that Australia will be paying between $450m and $500m for space services by 1995, especially as our communications are dependent on this area. Our present actions will determine just how much of that money flows abroad. Current indications are that it will be virtually the whole lot. The Madigan report of the working party on the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences recommended that $14m be spent this year to get a space industry off the ground over the next 10 years. It recommended that $100m be spent over the next five years. The Government has come up with a niggardly $5.25m for this year and no guarantees for the future, which makes it very difficult for such industries. One of its advisers has been quoted as applying the label `emotive and nationalistic' to aspects of this excellent report and saying that there are limits to how much vision governments are allowed to have. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard-I have sought leave from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who was previously at the table, and the shadow Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Chaney-an article dealing with this area. Leave granted. The article read as follows- Why our space industry may be left on the launching pad By Rod Frail in Canberra By 1995, Australia will be spending $350 to $500 million a year on space technology, mainly information from satellites vital for communications, agriculture, mineral exploration and weather. How much of this technology will be made in Australia and how much will come from technologically more advanced countries depends on what initiatives are taken now to foster a local space industry. A committee headed by the deputy chairman of CRA Ltd, Sir Russel Madigan, reported last year on how Australia could become involved in space technology. The Federal Government released its policy response two weeks ago, but it has taken a very different view from that of Sir Russel and his colleagues. They fear Paul Keating's banana republic warning will be borne out and Australia will become dependent not only financially but technologically on others unless a considerable amount of money is spent now to enter the space race with its accompanying advantages for revitalising industry. The Government take the pragmatic political view that money does not necessarily buy results. It says that in stringent economic conditions, it is more prudent to probe carefully the options before launching into unknown galaxies where there may be nothing but a black hole devouring dollars. Entering the space industry involves a Catch 22. You can't win international contracts without a track record in the industry. You can't get experience without contracts. The Madigan committee recommended that the Government spend $100 million over five years to assist Australian companies to fill Australian contracts and gain experience. The report said Australia had to find itself a market niche based on its areas of particular technological expertise. It identified one such area as remote sensing-collecting and interpreting information from satellites such as Landsat which circles the earth sending back information on land use and geography for agricultural and mineral exploration. Australia's vast distances and scattered population will make it increasingly dependent on this type of information. Aussat 1 and Aussat 2 are already providing radio and television to remote areas and supplying other data. Aussat 3 will be launched late next year. The total cost will be about $405 million of which $120 million will have been for Australian-made content in the form of direct content or offsets. The question is how much of Aussat's second generation in the 1990s will be Australian-made? The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, and the Science Minister, Mr Jones, did not accept two of Sir Russel's key recommendations-to commit the Government to $100m over five years and to a NASA-style independent statutory authority to be called ASTRA, Australian Space Technology Research Authority, to formulate policy. The Government has given a $5.25 million commitment for one year only. It is setting up an interim advisory committee, the Australian Space Board, located within the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, headed by the chairman of OTC, Mr Robert Somervaille. When Sir Russel was asked what his reaction to the initiatives was it was found that the Government had not even given him a copy. After reading them, Sir Russel said: ``I would not like to knock the whole thing because I think there are some positive aspects, but I just worry it is too little too late.'' He singled out three causes for worry: The small amount of money for 1986-87-his committee recommended $14 million-and not commitment beyond. Most of the $5.25 million is already committed to existing projects. The Space Board stays within the bureaucracy rather than being made a more independent body with large, free-enterprise representation. ``If the board is not independent, then the department will do a Sir Humphrey [the interfering department head of television's Yes Minister] on it,'' he said. Referring to the economic climate, he said: ``I would have thought it was the very thing needed. This is one thing that would generate money, not spend it. ``I don't think any business can spend capital setting up a factory to make something which the Government is only committed to support for one year.'' Another member of his committee, the technical director of Hawker de Havilland, Mr Stan Schaetzel, agreed. He said: ``If we don't spend this money, by 1995 the whole of Australia will be paying $450 to $500 million for space services and if we don't have a space industry, that will be going overseas.'' A third committee member, the chairman of the Physics Department at La Trobe University, Professor Keith Cole, had a dire warning for Australia: ``It either wants to get into the 21st century or degenerate. ``Space on its own is only part of the business. It has enormous spin-offs for industry-automation, remote sensing, transmission and processing of data.'' Mr Jones rejected Sir Russel's fears about the bureaucracy. He said: ``The board is independent and, while subject to ministerial riding instructions, people like Bob Somervaille and Dr Ken McCracken [director of the CSIRO's Office of Space Science and Applications, COSSA] are not bureaucratic stool pigeons.'' Senator Button's policy adviser on aerospace and technology matters, Ms Denise North, described aspects of the Madigan report as ``emotive and nationalistic.'' ``There are limits to how much vision Governments are allowed to have,'' she said. The US now spends between $25 and $30 per head of population on space research; Canada, Japan and West Germany $4 to $5; Australia about 33 cents. Ms North said space technology was not profitable without large government contributions. Nor should the spin-offs from the technology be overestimated. ``The spin-offs are important but not enough to justify the spending on their own. You don't fund the Apollo program just to get a Teflon fry pan. If you decide to produce space communications and space remote sensing, you don't do it on economic grounds, you do it on public policy grounds, like electricity supply.'' It will be the economic conditions of the next few years which determine whether Australia's plans for a space industry actually leave the launching pad. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Committee. No wonder Sir Russel Madigan was worried by the prospect of the Australian Public Service remaining in charge of an enterprise with such great potential. We have a real problem in this area. I ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) exactly what he intends to do about it and particularly about the Madigan report. The Minister knows of the article. I wish to canvass the subject of the tobacco industry. I raise the question of the excise on cigarettes and manufactured tobacco and the way in which the tobacco industry is currently creaming off money from government revenue by pumping tobacco leaf with gas. I believe that this matter should be investigated by the Department. I would like to know whether the Minister knows about it. It is put forward in the name of reducing tar content. However, the way tobacco interests are going about it is the only way in which they can skim off the profits by paying less excise and still charging their victims the same. Tar levels can be reduced by improving filters and by promoting the growth of different types of leaf. But in neither of these cases does all the profit go to the tobacco companies in the first instance. A source, which must remain confidential, has made available to me some figures on the comparative weight of 1,000 cigarettes over the past 11 years. In 1975-76 the weight of 1,000 cigarettes was 947 grams. By 1984-85 the weight of the same number of cigarettes was 788 grams. The weight for 1985-86, when averaged out, is estimated to have been only about 645 grams. Senator Short —That makes them healthier. Senator VIGOR —I will get on to that. I seek leave to incorporate the table provided to me in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Year Average weight per 1,000 cigarettes (grams) 1975-76... 947 1976-77... 913 1977-78... 877 1978-79... 862 1979-80... 848 1980-81... 833 1981-82... 822 1982-83... 833 1983-84... 833 1984-85... 788 1985-86 (preliminary)... 645 Senator VIGOR —I thank the Committee. Excise duty is paid on a per kilogram of manufactured product basis. This means that every time companies reduce the weight without reducing the price they pay less excise and pocket the profits. Perhaps this disreputable behaviour could be stopped by charging the excise on a per packet basis and discriminating on the basis of average tar and nicotine levels. This would make the product healthier and would certainly put an end to a rort which is netting record profits for tobacco interests. It would also encourage the industry to tackle the tar and nicotine questions in a more responsible manner. I ask the Minister to take this point on board. My second point in relation to the excise which has been increased on manufactured tobacco to bring it into line with that on cigarettes in this Budget is the absence of a concerted Government attempt to discourage smoking. In the United Kingdom excise levels have been increased regularly and sharply by both conservative and Labour governments. The result was a drop in consumption of nearly 20 per cent between 1980 and 1984 without any effect on revenue. Naturally, outlays on hospital beds and the like because of cigarette-related illnesses have decreased. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table from the latest Tobacco Board annual report to show how different the situation is in Australia. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Appendix O RATES OF EXCISE DUTY AND EXCISE DUTY PAID Rates of Excise Duty Applying Since 1 January 1965 Date Item 8B Cigarettes $ per kg product Item 6B2 tobacco $ per kg product As at 1.1.65... 8.179 4.50 From 18.8.65... 9.259 4.94 From 19.8.70... 10.362 5.38 From 18.8.71... 11.464 5.93 From 21.8.73... 14.00 7.20 From 23.7.74... 16.10 8.25 From 19.8.75... 19.36 9.88 From 15.8.78... 24.75 12.58 From 17.8.82... 29.70 15.10 From 23.8.83... 30.98 20.10 From 2.2.84... 32.25 20.92 From 21.8.84... 32.25 25.92 From 2.2.85... 33.09 26.59 From 2.8.85... 34.35 27.60 From 20.8.85... 34.35 32.60 EXCISE DUTY PAID ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS (Period of Stabilisation Plan) Year $'000 Year $'000 1964-65... 188 980 1975-76... 541 537 1965-66... 218 114 1976-77... 561 310 1966-67... 218 187 1977-78... 559 228 1967-68... 231 061 1978-79... 653 409 1968-69... 241 160 1979-80... 703 214 1969-70... 245 860 1980-81... 706 812 1970-71... 272 807 1981-82... 724 410 1971-72... 308 454 1982-83... 794 039 1972-73... 328 161 1983-84... 856 245 1973-74... 303 066 1984-85... 889 017 1974-75... 472 914 1985-86(a)... 946 000 (est) Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (a) Budget Speech 1985. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Committee. The table deals with the rates of excise duty on cigarettes and manufactured tobacco between 1965 and 1985. The Fraser Government raised the excise only twice in its seven and a bit years, the first time by around 27 1/2 per cent in 1978 and the second time by 20 per cent in 1982. The Minister will probably recall that the Australian Medical Association called for a 50 per cent increase during the first major government inquiry into the industry, which happened just recently, after about 40 years. This would have the effect of reducing consumption among the young because they are influenced by the price of such commodities. We have a national drug offensive in place to discourage the use of poisonous or other harmful products. The Better Health Commission has pointed out that we need vastly increased excise levels. That would make a sound contribution to national health. I wonder whether the Minister has considered co-ordinating his Department's activities regarding excise levels with the Government's health strategy. I would also like to know whether he will have his Department examine industry returns on average cigarette weights so that the admitted practice of pumping tobacco leaf with more gas does not constitute a siphoning of the revenue into tobacco coffers. The last matter I want to raise under this Department is also tobacco-related. It arose from questions asked in Estimates committee hearings. Just last week the National Health and Medical Research Council announced its strong opposition to all forms of `smokeless tobacco'. The Press release said: Evidence has come forward of a high incidence of mouth and lip cancer from `smokeless tobacco'. In June the Council had recommended that steps be taken to control the import and advertising of chewing tobacco. Now it has gone further by recommending that State and Territory health authorities restrict the availability and advertising of these products. Although the Department of Health has taken up this issue and everybody in the States has taken it up and recommended that Customs duty levels be raised, the Customs section of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce does not seem to have done anything to stop this product entering the country. I would like to know from the Minister whether anything is happening in this area, in which his Department and its activities impinge so strongly on the health of all Australians. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.51) —We are in the Committee stage of the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) relating to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. I will not go over all the details of either the matters raised in the second reading debate or, more particularly, the questions and issues raised in the very interesting and, I think, rewarding Estimates committee debates on this matter. I thank the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is in the chamber today, for his co-operation in the Estimates committee debate. It is a pity the outside public and the listening audience cannot hear what goes on in the Estimates committee debates because they are a very important part of the parliamentary process in the Senate and lead to a greater understanding by all sides of politics about some of the issues involved. In the few minutes available I will raise a couple of issues from the Estimates committee debates and from what I assert to be the considerable inconsistency between the Government's approach to macroeconomic policy over recent years and the approach adopted particularly through the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce in terms of specific industry policies. We would all agree that there is a need for considerable consistency between the Government's industry policies and its broader or macroeconomic policies, by which I mean monetary, fiscal, wages and exchange rate policies. There is also a need in particular industry policies for stability and predictability. There is a growing acceptance of the need for a revitalisation of Australian industry. Enormous issues must be tackled if this revitalisation is to occur. The bottom line is increased productivity and, therefore, increased export competitiveness and the ability to compete in our market against imported products. Those things will not occur unless we have considerably increased investment in industry. Increased investment will not occur unless the investors can see the prospect of a reasonable return on their investment. It is quite pointless attempting to encourage investment and productivity growth without providing the necessary environment, stability and predictability in government policies. We need an environment in which wealth generation, individual enterprise and business investment are actively encouraged and rewarded and in which our primary concern is how to create wealth and income rather than how to distribute it. The reason we have so many deep-seated and seemingly intractable problems in Australian industry today is, very importantly, that the community attitude has been built up over decades that we need to be more concerned with wealth and income distribution than with wealth creation. That is a very negative and backward attitude and one which has led us progressively over the years to a declining relative standard of living compared with those of many other countries. Where the Hawke Government is falling down so badly is that the macroenvironment the Government has painted with its policies has caused investment to lag and further cuts to investment plans are being forecast. I will go into some of those details in a moment. The latest quarterly survey of business conditions from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the National Australia Bank, which was released over the weekend, makes very disturbing reading. The survey found planned capital expenditure over the year ahead to be at its lowest level since the 1982-83 recession. The survey also highlighted the cost problem facing industry at all levels. The survey has simply confirmed what many of us have been saying to the Government for a considerable time-that if we cannot restrain our domestic costs the potential benefits to be derived from the quite massive devaluation of the Australian dollar over the past two years simply will not be realised. The effect of the devaluation in those circumstances may well be negative, with an increased likelihood that the economy will slide into further recession. I say to the Government and to the Minister at the table that so far as industry policy is concerned they have had very considerable support to date from the Opposition. Senator Chaney, the shadow Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, has said that there is a high degree of common ground between the Government and the Opposition on specific industry policies. That is an accurate assessment; but time is running out on this support because of the Government's failure and inability to take seriously the need to provide the complementary supporting macroeconomic environment and its failure to provide stability and predictability in those macropolicies and in industry policies. Let us look at a few examples of what I mean. The Government talks about stimulating investment and then it promptly goes ahead and raises corporate tax levels to the highest level in the Western world. Senator Button —That is rubbish and you know it. Senator SHORT —I understand that the company tax rate of 49 per cent recently imposed by the Minister's Government is the highest company tax rate of any government in any country in the Western world. There is much worse to come. The Government has imposed a whole raft of new taxes on the business sector. It has done so because it does not have the ability or courage or what have you to take the necessary measures to restrain its spending. As a result we have the fringe benefits tax, which has placed a double burden on industry by increasing costs to industry and the tax on industry. As a result, thousands of jobs throughout industry have been destroyed, particularly in the automotive industry. This goes across a very wide range of industry. Senator Button —Which section of the automotive industry has had thousands of jobs destroyed? Don't talk bunkum. Come on, tell me. Senator SHORT —The effects are still working their way through. They will be very considerable in the next couple of months. This will happen not just in the manufacturing sector but particularly in the sales and distribution area. That is a very major part of the industry. The Minister does not need me to tell him that. He knows that better than I. On top of that is the capital gains tax, which is a major disincentive to increased and, importantly, more flexible investment. That is by no means the end of the list, but those examples on the tax side illustrate what damage the Government is doing to the productive private sector with its increasing tax policies. On top of that comes the Government's support of union wage and wage-related demands, which will push costs still further and make it more difficult for us to improve our productivity. Other decisions have greatly eroded the confidence in this Government of the manufacturing sector and other sectors of industry. I mention in particular-it is just an example because there are many cases to support it-the totally arbitrary decision announced in the Budget to cut all bounty payments by 20 per cent overnight. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, has admitted that the decision was taken purely on budgetary grounds. No account whatsoever was taken of the situation facing particular companies or industries. No advice was sought from industry and no advice was sought from the Industries Assistance Commission, which is the body responsible for advising the Government on industry assistance matters. In one instance, that of the book bounty, the Government reduced the bounty by 20 per cent on Budget day and the very next day announced a further 20 per cent reduction to apply from 1 January as a result of an IAC inquiry. When I questioned Senator Button on this at an Estimates committee hearing he admitted that he was aware of the very significant impact on the book printing and publishing industry of what amounts in fact to a 36 per cent reduction in assistance in 4 1/2 months, more than half of that reduction in assistance coming with a decision that had nothing at all to do with industry policy. Yet the Minister is not prepared to give any further consideration to those most affected, including those-but not exclusively-in regional areas which depend very importantly on some of the companies in the industry. Nor has the Minister been prepared to give consideration to those other companies and industries adversely affected by this quite arbitrary decision. Many of them have already been disadvantaged by significant cost reductions flowing particularly as a result of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. The fringe benefits tax, the Budget bounty decision and other instances display a conflict between economic policy and industry policy which has led to a considerable inconsistency in the Government's whole approach to industry. It is unsettling to industry, it causes nervousness and lack of confidence. No wonder industry is not investing at the rate which is required if we are really serious about revitalising Australian industry. I am not sure that the extent of investment which will be required in Australia to get industry going again is fully realised, nor am I confident that the extent to which that will have to rely on imported capital equipment for investment purposes is fully realised. That leads one to a whole range of other areas of great concern, particularly in relation to what it means for the balance of payments, the exchange rate and all those other things that go together to make up a macroeconomic policy environment, which the Government has a mandatory obligation to try to get right if it is really to be serious about what it is trying to do with its industry policy. We certainly should be serious about this because in its outcome lies the future of Australia's living standards. There are various other issues that are relevant and pertinent to this Committee stage of the debate. Time does not permit me to go into them. If I had time I would refer to the whole question of our offsets policy and the problems smaller companies are having in getting a worthwhile involvement in the offsets program. I would certainly wish to talk about the role of the Australian Industry Development Corporation in taking its 10 per cent equity in the Portland smelter-an absolutely disastrous development politically motivated by the Cain Government in Victoria. I would refer also to the staggering lack of follow up on the very valuable work that has been done by the Business Regulation Review Unit, the problems facing the management and investment companies which were reported in the Press over the weekend, the lack of capital and the expansion that seems to be taking place in the bureaucracy involved with industry councils and the like. As I said, time does not permit me to deal with these matters but perhaps the Minister, in responding to the comments of honourable senators on this side of the chamber, will cover some of those matters. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.06) —I do not wish to intervene at great length at this stage. I feel that in order that Senator Vigor might go and have the evening away from the chamber I should comment on some of the things that he said at this stage and get some of these matters out of the way. However, I really cannot say much by way of response to Senator Vigor, particularly about the tobacco industry. I honestly do not know much about it and I have not read the articles about pumping up tobacco leaves with gas. I will try to read them as early as possible. All I really know about the tobacco industry is that I smoke and I regret that fact very much. I regard it as silly but I cannot help myself. I will probably go on smoking. Senator Vigor asked me half a dozen times whether I recall that the excise duty was raised in 1973 and again in 1978. I do not recall many of those things. He asked me to take on board a number of other things and I will take on board everything else he said and see whether I can catch up with my reading in that particular area. I want to say a few things about what Senator Short had to say. His speech reveals the great dilemma of the Opposition at the moment. It starts with the proposition of saying: `There is a conflict between macroeconomic policy which we do not like and industry policy which we do like and that conflict has to be resolved'. There is always an inherent conflict between those two things and the sort of balance-- Senator Short —There does not have to be. Senator BUTTON —I think there does in the current context in Australia and the greater the extent to which one resolves those conflicts the better one will do. Having made that sort of general allegation, the rest of Senator Short's speech was just a grab-bag of everything that the Liberal Party in opposition has been throwing together in the past six months. Senator Short —You can do better than that. Senator BUTTON —I am going to do better than that. There were certain statements-such as the effects of the fringe benefits tax-which, when I challenged Senator Short about it, he retreated very rapidly because what he was saying in respect of those matters was incorrect. Let me turn to one or two of the major issues which arise from Senator Short's speech. The promise from the Opposition inherent in Senator Short's speech was that in order to bring macroeconomic policy and industry policy together a Liberal government if elected in this country would abolish the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, would reduce taxation and would do all the things designed to make the industry environment-indeed, the human environment-much more comfortable. One really has to address very hard thinking to those things. It is only three months since the last Budget was brought down. Senator Short well knows that one cannot do all the things which were inherent in what he was saying. One cannot have a sort of floating promise that somehow all of these things will be rectified if the Liberal Party ever gains office and money will be expended on other things. Indeed, it could not maintain anything like existing levels of expenditure if it funded all sorts of other things on which it has said it will expend money. Senator Walters —No, we have not. That is not true. Senator BUTTON —It depends which week of Liberal Party promises one is looking at. Senator Short went on to give a very potted view of comparative company taxation levels by simply asserting that Australia had the highest company tax regime in the world-49 per cent. He asserted that as a bland piece of information based on the fact that the nominal rate of company taxation will be 49 per cent. If Senator Short likes, I will get him that information. If he wants to substantiate these arguments in debate, I suggest that he try. Quite recently I looked at comparative figures for the United States of America, Japan, Canada and Australia in respect of company tax rates. If one takes into account that in the United States a whole range of allowances and incentives will be abolished when the new nominal tax rate for companies comes into existence, plus State taxes and charges, if one takes into account in a similar way the existing regime in Japan and Canada, and if one takes into account the effects of imputation in Australia-the effects of the 5/3 depreciation and so on-Australia comparatively comes second out of those four countries. When Canada changes its tax regime, Australia will have the most favourable tax regime for companies out of those four countries. Senator Short —I would like to see the figures. Senator BUTTON —Of course Senator Short would like to see the figures, and he will. If it has any effect in terms of advancing arguments around the place that one looks at the actual nominal rate and determines an argument on that basis, I think it will be very beneficial for him to look at the figures. I will see that he can do that. There were a number of other fairly wild allegations about investment levels. The increase in investment levels in manufacturing last year was reasonably satisfactory on an historical basis. It is not satisfactory in terms of the enormous changes which have to be brought about. I do not pretend that for one moment. But let me make it quite clear that on an historical basis it was a satisfactory level of investment. He kept referring to all those other things which go together in statements like that. It is not possible at this stage in this debate, when looking at these issues, to put them all together. He said that he could not go into all of those things which go together. Some of the things he mentioned were a lack of capital for the management investment company licensing scheme. Is his Party going to increase capital for that scheme? I do not know. That is another thing which would have to be added to the expenditure side of a Howard Budget if that were done. He talked about bureaucracy in the industry councils. I do not think that has been a major problem in those councils. They have made enormous advances in the last two or three years-advances which would be largely lost if that process was not continued or if there was a party in power which was not capable, which it would not be, of continuing that process. We can go on talking about these things ad infinitum, but what concerns me most is that in terms of matching macroeconomic policy with industry policy it is not sufficient to just take all those taxes which appear to have caused a little bit of pain to particular segments of the community and say `We will get rid of all those and the macro issues will then accord with industry policy much better than they have under this Government'. I do not think anybody out there in industry, if confronted with a serious argument on this issue, would agree with that view. It is not sufficient to float the argument about comparative taxes, and the issue of investment, of course, is not as superficial as he suggested in the course of his contribution to this debate. Above all, I think it indicates the total unawareness of the substantial changes to the taxation system which have been brought in by this Government, both in respect of marginal rates and imputation-the sort of changes which led the Australian Financial Review to comment at the time on the tax package, for example, that these changes brought about essentially the best regime for investment and the future of productive industry, as distinct from the industries nurtured for years by Liberal governments with the absence of a capital gains tax, and brought about the best environment for productive industry in Australia that we have seen for decades. That is the sort of argument that has to be confronted here and not these sloppy allegations about the fringe benefits tax, for example, being greatly to the detriment, in the medium to long term, of productive activity in the Australian economy. I intervened at this stage only for the purpose of correcting what seemed to be ideological errors in Senator Short's own argument and also to accommodate Senator Vigor's points that he made at an earlier stage. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.15) —Before dealing with the alleged ideological errors that Senator Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, referred to in Senator Short's excellent speech-I hope to be able to demonstrate some of the elements of nonsense that Senator Button went on with-I would like to raise some specific matters which emerged from the Senate Estimate Committee questioning of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce which I believe call for some action by this Government. That questioning raised some general questions which apply to many other departments, but I would like to use the responses made by this Department as a general indication of matters of serious concern that this Government has not acted on and must act on. In particular, I draw attention to the additional costs involved in the management of government arising from the much higher level of sick leave required by permanent employees as against the rate of sick leave of temporary staff. I do not know whether the fact that a person is a permanent employee renders that person more prone to illness than a temporary employee, but it is interesting to note that throughout the Commonwealth Public Service there seems to be the strange propensity for permanent staff to be more afflicted by illness, and therefore obliged to take sick leave, than those who are temporary staff. Maybe it is because temporary staff do not have the same feeling of security in their jobs as do the permanent staff. I point out, for example, that in the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, when I asked for the percentage of time lost by permanent as against temporary staff on sick leave, this was the answer: For permanent staff 2.41 per cent of their time is lost on sick leave. For temporary staff, as a percentage of total time, sick leave is 1.43 per cent. For those with a mathematical bent, this means that sick leave for permanent staff is 70 per cent worse than for temporary staff. That situation exists also in the Industries Assistance Commission, which comes within this general head. There, when one special case is excluded, the percentage of time lost by casual and contract staff is 1.9 per cent and for permanent staff the figure is 2.5 per cent-a similar disadvantage in cost terms to the Government between permanent and temporary employees. It would seem to me that, following some concerns stated in New South Wales about sick leave in the police force, it is worth the Government examining why there is such an extraordinary 70 per cent difference between the rate of sick leave taken by temporary staff and that taken by permanent staff. This leads to another problem relating to illness. I asked all sections of the Public Service during Estimates committee hearings what were the reasons for the extraordinarily high level of invalidity retirement from the Commonwealth Public Service. I acknowledge that the Government has quite recently agreed to take some measures aimed at limiting the extraordinary situation that exists in the Commonwealth Public Service relating to retirement through invalidity. Of course, the measures being taken are of a token nature and are subject to the approval, as is almost everything that this Government does, of the trade union movement. I do not expect that approval to be given to those draft proposals. The only significant one is that those people who have retired through invalidity from the Commonwealth Public Service should be obliged to report to the Government what subsequent income they receive in any employment that takes place subsequent to their retirement through invalidity. I looked at specific sections of the bureaucracy, such as the Australian Customs Service. It is extraordinary that in this Service, as is the case throughout the Public Service, a very large proportion of the retirements through invalidity appear to be related to problems which are difficult to diagnose. This relates, of course, to the whole Public Service. We have seen already that in the Victorian branches of the Commonwealth Public Service the retirement rate through invalidity is double the number of people who retire through reaching retirement age. This is an absolute nonsense. There can be no justification for twice as many people in Victoria retiring through invalidity as do through reaching retirement age. In New South Wales the ratio is exactly the other way around. Twice as many people in New South Wales retire through reaching retirement age as do through invalidity. Is it because of the different code of football that is played in Victoria? Maybe it affects people in some curious way. Maybe it is because of the appalling weather. Who knows what is the cause? But the reality is that some kind of ramp has been going on within the Public Service which is indefensible and inexcusable, which, as I said, involves twice as many people in Victoria retiring through invalidity as those who retire through reaching retirement age. In New South Wales it is the other way around. In that situation-it is the case in the Australian Customs Service-an unacceptable proportion of people appear to be retiring for reasons that are, as I said, very difficult to diagnose. They involve mental illnesses or bad backs. Once again, when one looks at the difference between, say, Victoria and New South Wales, one establishes that three times as many people retire from the Commonwealth Public Service in Victoria as a result of mental disturbances-neuroses in particular-than retire in New South Wales through neuroses. Yet there are more Commonwealth public servants in New South Wales than there are in Victoria. Once again, is it the football that they play, or is there a clear ramp going on in Victoria relating specifically to falsification of reasons for retirement, particularly in the case of those people aged over 55 who can retire on full benefits, as I understand it, if they can be invalided out? Frankly, the Commonwealth Government must do something to clean up its Victorian operations because they are simply unsupportable. From the information I have received relating to this Department, I do not know what proportion of retirements through invalidity in the Australian Customs Service, for example, relate to Victoria. But I presume the pattern would be the same. I think it is important to draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that the number and cause of retirements from the Australian Customs Service in 1985-86 are given in a table I have received from the Department, and they total 47. But 23 of them relate to problems of a mental state, bad backs or, of course, repetition strain injury. I will not question whether RSI is more appropriately a psychological or a physical problem. I am unaware of the answer to that. All I know is that it is hard to diagnose and apparently hard to treat. If we look at the list of 47 people who retired from the Australian Customs Service last year, we find that eight retired through RSI and nine through anxiety depression. It may well be that the Customs Service is operating under a serious amount of tension, but it does seem extraordinary that last year nine people out of a total of 47 retirements should have retired because of anxiety depression. Two people retired because of chronic relapsing paranoid schizophrenia. I must say that I am glad they are not still in the Customs Service. Two retired through anxiety reaction and for other reasons. One person retired through alcoholism and depression, and one through back pain. I have no comment about the genuineness or otherwise of those people. All I am saying is that it is extraordinary that a great bulk of the number of people who retired from the Australian Customs Service last year did so because of mental conditions. That seems to me to be a far higher proportion of people with neuroses than would exist in the work force. I cannot imagine that such an enormous proportion-22 out of 47 people who retired through ill health-are retiring through mental problems throughout the community. I am certain that that ratio would not exist. Is there something very serious about the conditions of work in the Customs Service? That may well be an issue that the Government should take up. There may be an urgent need to improve working conditions, or there may be a need to look into the matter on another ground. The other point I want briefly to make is that, if the Government is serious about trying to cut costs-frankly, if it is serious about trying to cut costs it will do something about this invalidity retirement and sick leave matter-it could also look at the question of the unnecessary and self-indulgent expenditure of money on expensive stationery by the mandarins of the Public Service. We in the Senate have all agreed, because of the economic problems facing this nation, to do away with the special embossed letterhead we had. Our letterhead is now simply printed. I notice that Ministers have not shared the enthusiasm of senators to save costs in that way. In fact, in this Department there has been, in my view, a $6,000 waste of money in the current financial year on purchasing special ministerial stationery and envelopes. Such stationery costs about $40 a ream, as opposed to the normal cost of $25 a ream. In 1986-87, I am advised by the Department, in response to my request, the Department expects to spend $16,135 on ministerial stationery and envelopes-of which, by the way, $5,600 is met by the Australian Customs Service. The difference between plain stationery and ministerial stationery is that the ministerial stationery is vergo-typed-that is, with the printing raised-and it is printed on a higher quality paper. If we are in serious economic trouble, why are we wasting money on expensive stationery? If it is good enough for the senators and members of this Parliament to use ordinary printed paper in order to save money, why do not the Ministers in this place and the departmental heads do likewise? This general question exists throughout the Public Service and throughout the ministerial offices. If the Government is fair dinkum about saving costs, Ministers could look to their own expenditure. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce alone is costing this nation $6,000 just so that he can have some pretty letterhead. I say to the Minister that he can do an awful lot better than that. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.00) —Mr Chairman, could I have your indulgence for just a couple of moments to respond to something the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, said immediately before the dinner break, when he replied to some matters I raised. He questioned my statement about the inconsistency between the Government's fringe benefits tax and its policy towards the automotive industry. He claimed that there was no evidence that the fringe benefits tax had led to any reduction in employment or activity in the automotive industry. For the record, I draw to the Committee's attention that the latest survey of the motor vehicle industry published as recently as last week indicated that the fringe benefits tax is the major cause of the 30.5 per cent drop-a drop of almost one-third-that has occurred in the sale of new commercial and fleet vehicles in recent months. According to the same survey, car dealers estimate that fringe benefits tax payments will add 6 to 8 per cent to the tax on most employers because the fringe benefits tax cannot be claimed as a tax deduction. The survey also pointed out that to date the fringe benefits tax has resulted in a decline of 4,000 workers in car retailing over the survey year and there is a prediction that a further 3,000 workers could be laid off. So, far from the statement made by the Minister before dinner that this tax is not having an effect on the industry being the case, it is patently obvious that it is having a major effect on the industry. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.02) —Before the suspension of the sitting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, encouraged us to put right some of the statements he has made regarding the Opposition's position on the economy and what it has promised it will do when it comes to power. The Opposition has said that it will abolish three major things-the assets test, the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. That was said unequivocally by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). He also said that we will abolish a lot of the useless commissions, such as the Better Health Commission, and that we will maintain government spending at the same level for the next three years. We have promised that there will be no additional expenditure by the Opposition. We have been asked to make promises; we have given none. It is no use Senator Button saying in this place that he does not know where the Opposition will get the money if it abolishes those three major tax gathering benefits to the Government. There is no point in his asking how we will fund all the promises we have made. We have made no promises. Indeed, we have been very careful not to make promises, and it is no use Senator Button trying to distort our situation. I told him prior to the suspension of the sitting that I would be saying just a few words. It is time he stopped fooling around with Government policy. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $130,872,000. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.05) —As we are dealing with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet I wish to address myself to the question of the way in which legislation is dealt with in this Parliament and the way in which the Government is dealing with legislation at the moment, particularly the habit which is developing within this Government of passing legislation but not moving on to its proclamation. The vote to which one relates this to is that clearly under the provisions in Prime Minister and Cabinet there is responsibility for the funding of the Executive Council and the office of Governor-General. The CHAIRMAN —You have just anticipated the question I was about to ask you, Senator Puplick. Senator PUPLICK —Mr Chairman, I was aware that either of your own volition or as a result of prompting from those around you there was some question as to how this matter might be related to the appropriation before the Committee. Nevertheless, the Office of Governor-General, the Executive Council and the responsibility of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet for the establishment of the mechanism by which legislation comes into effect come under this appropriation. The attempt of the Government to make a mockery of the Governor-General's signature on a piece of legislation by putting it before His Excellency to sign into law and then not proceeding to its proclamation is a matter which has come before an Estimates committee. Estimates Committee D has drawn the attention of the Parliament to the fact that there has been a development in which a considerable period has been allowed to elapse between the passage of Bills through the Parliament and their proclamation. It draws the attention of the Parliament to two Bills in particular. The Public Lending Rights Bill 1985 was introduced into the House of Representatives on 17 April 1985, passed by the House on 9 May 1985, introduced into the Senate on 9 May 1985, passed by the Senate on 6 December 1985, and assented to by His Excellency on 16 December 1985. That piece of legislation has still not been proclaimed. It affects individuals who have the right to receive payment for items which they have created and which are now within the public lending rights scheme throughout Australian libraries. We were told when the Bill was debated in this chamber that the amendments the Opposition sought to make to the legislation could not be made, that the Bill was an urgent Bill which could not be amended by the Senate in December 1985 because the House of Representatives had adjourned for the year and the Government was not prepared to recall it to deal with amendments which the Senate might have been persuaded to make. I moved those amendments on behalf of the Opposition. The Australian Democrats were persuaded by the Government's objections that it was important to put this piece of legislation in place, that there was some urgency about it. In December 1985 the amendments we sought would have moved the payment schedule from being gazetted to being made by regulation so that the Parliament could have some scrutiny over those changes. We were told not to proceed with them because the Bill had to be got through the Parliament urgently. It is now November 1986, 11 months later, and it still has not been proclaimed. A second example is given in the report of Estimates Committee D of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill. That Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in November 1985, passed on 18 February 1986, introduced in this chamber on 11 March 1986, passed on 1 May 1986, assented to on 13 May 1986 and is still not proclaimed. This is an Act which affects the rights of individuals who possess items which may or may not fall within the definition of movable cultural heritage property. They find themselves placed in a situation because an Act which was passed some six months ago is still not proclaimed into law. They do not know what their position is because although the Act has been passed, it has not been proclaimed into law. They do not know whether they have the right to export material which is in their control or not because although that may fall outside the ambit of the Act, the Act has not yet been passed. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list which has been drawn up for me by the Clerk's office showing sections of Acts which have been passed but not yet proclaimed, Acts which have been passed but which have not yet been proclaimed and Acts which have been subject to significant delays from assent to commencement. Leave granted. The list read as follows- EXAMPLES OF OUTSTANDING PROCLAMATIONS 1. Sections of Acts still to be proclaimed: Navigation Amendment Act 1980-87/1980 (Assent 29.5.80) Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984-129/1984 (Assent 25.10.84) Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984- 75/1984 (Assent 25.6.84) Shipping Registration Amendment Act 1984- 16/1984 (Assent 26.4.84) Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts-various 2. Acts still to be proclaimed: Patents Amendment Act 1984-92/1984 (Assent 21.9.84) Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Amendment Act 1985-202/1985 (Assent 16.12.85) Interstate Road Transport Act 1985-130/1985 (Assent 22.11.85) Public Lending Rights Act 1985-200/1985 (Assent 16.12.85) Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986-11/1986 (Assent 13.5.86) 3. Acts with significant delays from Assent to commencement: Fisheries Licences Levy Act 1984-151/1984 Assent 25.10.84-Commencement 31.8.85 (s. 347/85) Insurance Contracts Act 1984-80/1984 Assent 25.6.84-Commencement 1.1.86 (s. 487/85) Evidence Amendment Act 1985-198/1985 Assent 16.12.85-Commencement 1.9.86 (s. 422/86) Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Act 1985-17/1985 Assent 7.5.86-Commencement 16.10.85 (s. 423/85) National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1985-35/1985 Assent 27.5.85-Commencement 20.12.85 (s. 551/85) Registration of Deaths Abroad Act-169/1984 Assent 25.10.84-Commencement 1.12.85 (s. 506/85) Senator PUPLICK —May I give you examples, Mr Chairman? The Navigation Amendment Act was passed in 1980. Some sections of that Act have still not been proclaimed. The Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984, the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 and the Shipping Registration Amendment Act 1984 were passed and substantial parts of them have still not been proclaimed. I can give the Committee some examples of Acts which have still not been proclaimed in toto. The first of these is the Patents Amendment Act 1984. When this Act was introduced the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) told us how important it was. In his second reading speech the Minister said that although the Act did not reflect dramatic changes in law it reflected changes in technology which were taking place and to which Australia had to be a party. In particular the Patents Amendment Act 1984 makes Australia a party to the Budapest Treaty which deals with biotechnology and the patenting of organisms created by biotechnological processes. We were told at the time how important this was for a part of Australia's industrial development. Senator Vigor has a particular interest in these areas. Senator Childs is in the chamber this evening. The Standing Committee on Industry and Trade, of which he is the Chairman, is looking at the development of Australian manufacturing industry. We were told at the time that important sections of the Patents Amendment Act would allow Australia to participate in new biotechnology developments. That legislation was debated in March 1984 in the House of Representatives. It still has not been proclaimed. There are significant issues involved in the way in which broadcasting is developing at the moment. One of the key areas is the definition of what actually comprises a point to point broadcast. There are very significant issues, not only of broadcasting law but of finance and property, involved in the definition of broadcasting. This matter was supposed to be taken up by amendments which were made in the Copyright Amendment Bill. But the sections of the Copyright Amendment Bill which deal with the definition of broadcasting have not yet been proclaimed. As a result, all of the new broadcasting technologies which involve private broadcasting to clubs, pubs and other organisations and which have a very profound effect upon the nature of broadcasting, are not yet covered because, although this Parliament has passed the necessary Act, this Government has not got around to proclaiming it. I give only one other example contained in the list which has now been incorporated in Hansard, and that is the Interstate Road Transport Act which took hours and hours of debate in this place, was the subject of a large number of amendments, was passed in 1985, was assented to on 22 November 1985 and which still has not yet been proclaimed. There is nothing unusual about this procedure. The British Parliament has been doing it for a long time. An article in the Economist of December 1981 drew attention to the fact that the British Parliament's outstanding record was that the Children and Young Persons Act of 1969 still had not been proclaimed in that country. The Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Children's Act 1975 and the Criminal Law Act 1977 were still unproclaimed in 1981. One of the most distinguished previous members of this chamber, Senator Peter Rae, sought to draw the attention of the Parliament to this matter some years ago. In 1983 he gave notice of a motion which he proposed to move as an Address to be sent to His Excellency the Governor-General to request him to direct his attention to the habit which this and previous governments had been developing of passing but not proclaiming legislation. Normally under the Acts Interpretation Act, Acts of Parliament should come into operation within 28 days of receiving royal assent. But increasingly, Acts are being written in a way which says that they shall come into effect on a date to be fixed by proclamation. It is not just a matter of assent. It is in fact a matter of the Acts having to appear as having been proclaimed and that proclamation having to be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. I put it to the Committee that this is a very serious matter to which the Parliament should address itself. I do not regard this Government as being unusual in its behaviour. Previous governments of my persuasion have been equally at fault in this regard. The various Acts regarding the stand-down of Commonwealth employees-the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act and a number of others-were passed to be held in reserve, as it were, and to be proclaimed at some later date. I regard as very unsound the practice undertaken by governments of putting this Parliament through the process of passing legislation and then holding in pectore, as it were, some sort of secret deal whereby an Act of Parliament will be proclaimed. People in the community who believe that once an Act of Parliament is passed by the Parliament it has in fact become the law of the land are deceived in that it does not become the law of the land even once it is assented to by the Crown's representative because a government can hold, for whatever purposes, that Act in reserve and not proclaim it. I think that is a very unsound constitutional practice. I think it is a very unparliamentary practice. It is one which appears to be developing more and more. Estimates Committee D looked just within the few portfolios for which it has responsibility and discovered two Acts, both of which are significant in terms of the way in which they impact upon the rights of individual citizens of Australia and both of which have economic consequences for people. I refer to the Public Lending Rights Act and the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act. We find that up to 11 months in one instance and six months in another have elapsed and still those Acts, which have been debated in this Parliament, have not been proclaimed into law. Of those two Acts, the former concerns me more because the Government deceived this Parliament by telling us that it was an urgent Bill which we could not amend because it was urgently required. Yet, 11 months later it has still not been proclaimed into law. I believe that the Parliament ought to take a little more seriously its responsibility in seeing that Acts which it passes actually end up having the force of law; that the law, as the Parliament passes it, is not left in the hands of the executive government to play ducks and drakes with and to proclaim and give effect to by executive fiat after the views of the Parliament have been made known. This is an issue to which I believe the Parliament should address a great deal more attention. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(8.20) —I raise another matter in which the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet-which is a Yes, Prime Minister type of department par excellence-is putting forward those types of views. Senator Walsh —How would you know? Senator Grimes —What would you know about it? Senator VIGOR —I point out to Senator Grimes and Senator Walsh that it was the most pathetic of all the departments represented at the Estimates committee hearings I attended. I attended all the Estimates committee hearings in the course of my work. I believe that the members of this Department, who turned up in large numbers, were actually startled when honourable senators asked questions on matters of content related to their explanatory notes. Also this Department seemed to be completely unable to answer simple and straightforward questions on the latest annual report. Officers of the Department said they had no one there to answer questions on it, despite this chamber being almost full of its people. Even the simplest matters were taken on notice and I was provided with `Yes, Senator' type answers. In addition, there was the most appalling ignorance about Estimates committee procedures. I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is not relying on the second guessing of this group of people to run the country, because I was most appalled at the whole proceedings. One officer suggested that he would not answer a question from me because a draft answer to a similar question on notice in the House of Representatives was still awaiting clearance. However, he was quickly persuaded by the Committee to answer. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) will recall that last year Mr Reid was completely misled about the coercive powers of the Estimates committees when he asked whether he could decline to give information in response to questioning on the Australian Bicentennial Authority. When these types of things happen for two successive years, and in various ways, one starts to wonder about the general quality of the advice that our Prime Minister is getting. I hope that the Prime Minister's Department will be asked to lift its game at the next Estimates committee hearing. I do not have the same problem with the Public Service Board, whose officers answered questions quite effectively. I wish to pursue a couple of questions relating to that area. In answers provided to me by the Public Service Board about a month after other answers, the Board stated that it collects statistics on the numbers of temporary employees only at the end of June each year. This means that departments are able to structure their contracts with these temporary employees to achieve particular cosmetic results, which in turn means that the statistics which we get in this Parliament are distorted. I would now like to refer to just one department, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and in so doing I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table of employee numbers as at the end of May, June and July this year, which I obtained in answer to a question. I have checked with both sides of the chamber. Leave granted. The table read as follows- DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Senator Vigor (Hansard page 488) asked: Question for each Sub-program (i) How many temporary staff were employed as part of the sub-program, on the last day of May, June and July respectively? (ii) What re-arrangements of duties were required when temporary staff were dismissed during June? On which days were the dismissals made? Answer: (i)- Sub-program 31.5.86 30.6.86 31.7.86 1.1 Population Analysis and Migration Planning... - - - 1.2 Residence... 19 15 20 2.1 Temporary Entry... 5 2 4 2.2 International Movement Control... 7 3 4 2.3 Control of Illegal Immigration... 3 3 1 3.1 Post-Arrival Services... 54 38 53 3.2 Community Affairs... 3 3 3 3.3 Citizenship... 13 10 10 4.1 Policy Co-ordination, Management and Office Support... 146 118 124 4.2 Review and Administrative Law... 16 15 15 4.3 Information Services... - - - 4.4 Investigations... - - - Total... 266 207 234 (ii) No significant changes were effected in any of the sub-programs engaging temporary staff during June. No employees were dismissed. No re-arrangement of duties were considered necessary as terminations effected were as a result of the completion of specific tasks outlined in the terms of employees contracts. Senator VIGOR —The reduction at the end of June is quite marked. There was a rapid rise again in July. This raises the question of to what extent departments are using contract employees to get around either unrealistic staff levels or a sub-optimal allocation of resources. There is also the possible structuring of contracts so that the formal reporting procedures do not paint an accurate picture or reflection of the general activities of the department concerned. I do not know whether this can be looked at as misleading the Parliament. I do not know whether this is occurring on a massive scale. But I would recommend that the Minister for Finance and the Department of Finance look into it. It may also be of interest to the Opposition's Waste-Watch Committee. I have had several complaints from the trade unions about this practice. I would like to know whether any examination of these matters is under way or whether there is any proposed examination as a result of the Government's recent close examination of the Public Service. I know that did not handle the temporary employee problem, but I think it should have. Another interesting answer that just turned up is the matter of public servants remaining on higher duties for periods of 12 months or more. I can understand this when a staff member goes on leave and will be coming back, but this was the reason given for about 700 of the 10,200 cases detected in the Public Service survey of 2 September 1985. Under 7 per cent of all cases were the result of people going on leave and being temporarily replaced. Nearly 4,400 instances arose because the positions had not yet been filled permanently and slightly more than 4,400 instances arose because someone else was on higher duties allowance. In other words, about one public servant position in every 40 was unfilled for over 12 months at that time. This means we are paying people at the senior level rate when they may only be acting in those positions. This had similar flow-on effects for essential people at lower levels. Again, this suggests that departments have not been in a desperate hurry to fill positions and have been quite prepared to make substantial proportions of their staff available for somebody else's job. This is another problem that we have to look at in terms of effectiveness in the Public Service. Either it can do with less or there is a problem. Maybe it is padding it up with temporary staff. When we compare the survey findings with the staffing levels listed in the 1984-85 statistics year book of the Public Service we find several examples of departments and authorities having had more than one position in eight unfilled for over 12 months. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Social Security all have that particular distinction, as does the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, which is within the Department of Foreign Affairs. I would like to know when such long term higher duties stints on this scale start to have a deleterious effect on the operation of departments and authorities. What is the Government doing more strongly to encourage these bodies to fill vacant positions a lot more quickly? It is interesting that the problem seems quite a deal more marked in regional offices, as they have a far greater proportion of people on long term higher duties than their proportion of total Public Service staff, according to the statistics which I have got. I would like to finish by mentioning a third but very small matter. A written answer given to Estimates Committee A indicated that the precise terms of reference, the commencement date, the timing and the resources to be devoted to the flexitime review will be decided in consultation with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Can the Minister please indicate what progress has been made on this matter? Can he provide the chamber with further details about the Prime Minister's announced review in this area? I would be pleased to get some comment from the Minister as it appears to relate to his area of the Department of Finance. What is he doing to make certain that such practices within the Public Service are curbed and are properly monitored? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.29) —I understand that contracts will shortly be let for the supply of computer equipment for use in members' and senators' electoral offices. What action will be taken to ensure that such equipment will be compatible with the equipment already in use in our Parliament House offices? The CHAIRMAN —I think, Senator, that might be a question more relevant to the Department of the Special Minister of State. If the Minister would like to answer it, he may, but you might like to ask that question when debating those estimates. Senator WALTERS —May I then ask the Minister a question on the fringe benefits tax? Senator Walsh —No, it has nothing to do with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Senator WALTERS —I would imagine that parliamentary departments would come under the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Is that correct? The CHAIRMAN —It is not correct. The Committee has already passed the estimates for the parliamentary departments. Senator WALTERS —I know it has passed them, but does that stop me asking a question of the Minister? The CHAIRMAN —It does not stop you asking the question. You may ask it, Senator Walters. Senator WALTERS —Fine. I just want to ask the Minister a question. The CHAIRMAN —If it is relevant to the votes he will no doubt answer it. Senator WALTERS —It is relevant, no doubt, to the votes. Can the Minister tell me what is the expected liability to the Department under the fringe benefits tax legislation? The CHAIRMAN —That is not, I think, relevant to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Does the Minister wish to answer? Senator Walsh —No. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, do you mean the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? Senator WALTERS —Yes. The CHAIRMAN —That is relevant to the Estimates. Does the Minister wish to answer? Senator Walsh —No. Senator WALTERS —We have a Minister who, in an arrogant way, is the only Minister in this Parliament who refuses to answer questions on the appropriations in the Committee of the Whole. I do not understand his approach but, if he wants to keep that up, we can sit here until the Committee rises at 10.30 p.m.; but I will continue to ask him the question until he gives me a polite answer. It is up to the Minister whether he intends to give me the answer in a polite fashion or whether he intends to remain arrogant. If the Minister is wanting us to get on with the Appropriation Bill in the Committee of the Whole I advise him to give me a polite answer. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.31) —I have stayed out of the debate because I am interested in later departments, but I put it to you, Mr Chairman, that it is not reasonable for the Minister for Finance simply to say to Senator Walters that he is not interested in her questions and that he will not answer them. If there is some good reason in logic or some good reason in resource availability as to why he cannot answer them, a courteous answer would assist the Committee. Senator Walters's question has been judged to be in order and relevant to the Department. It is a question about the Department's functioning and about the Department's appropriation. Those of us who are keen to see the Committee proceed in an orderly and reasonable manner hope that reasonable questions will be answered. The question was not asked in any loud, aggressive, or difficult way. It was a question that was asked. I ask the Minister to give to the honourable senator, who was elected here like him, the same courtesy as he would expect in the same circumstances. If he will not do so we will have to give consideration to moving to report progress and adjourning the debate until we can get some resolution of the matter. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(8.33) —We, various Commonwealth parliamentary officials and Government Ministers, had inflicted on us, by compulsive bores like Senator Walters, Senator Watson and Senator Vigor, hours and hours of trivial, puerile questioning in the Estimates committees and were subjected to another 10 hours, principally by the same compulsive bores, with a few additions, in the debate on the second reading, and now they come back in here to try to rerun the Estimates committee event in the Committee of the Whole. If they want to ask questions I will try to get answered their questions on notice, but I will not co-operate in their self-indulgence which they are displaying tonight, and which they habitually display-particularly those three honourable senators. If we could get those three out of the Parliament we would do our business in about half the time and we would do it much more effectively. If they had any brains or anything sensible to ask I really would not mind, but they are such a bunch of drongos. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.34) —Senator Walsh should know me better. He can carry on as much as he likes, but he will not intimidate me and there is no way that he will intimidate anyone else. There is no way that the Minister will get away with that. I was very careful in asking a question that has not been asked in the Estimates. My question is not a rerun of the Estimates; it was a question that was not answered. Unless the Minister is prepared to answer my question in a reasonable and polite fashion I will continue asking the question until 10.30 tonight. The Minister can take his choice; either he behaves in a reasonable fashion or he sits there until 10.30 p.m. with me asking the question. Senator Walsh —No, I won't be here at half past ten. I will be out of here at 9 o'clock. Senator WALTERS —Right. The Minister will be out by 9 o'clock, and we may get another Minister who has a more reasonable approach to the Appropriation Bills. That is up to the Minister. Either he sits here until 9 o'clock when his ministerial duty expires in the Committee, or he answers my question. I will continue to ask the question until the Minister stands up to give me a polite answer. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.35) —I intervene because I believe that honourable senators should read the information they are given. I am informed that this information has been given. It is supplied in the Prime Minister and Cabinet notes. It says, under fringe benefits tax, that provision has been made for the payment of fringe benefits tax for the transitional year in the first quarter of the first full year of the tax. Provision has been made for the tax under the following headings: Departmental cars: $8,500; official telephones, $19,500; and official entertainment, $1,000. This is a total of $29,000. I understand that that information has been given to all honourable senators. I wish all honourable senators would read the papers they get rather than come in here to ask questions seeking information which they should already have. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.36) —I thank the Minister for Community Services because at least he is a little more polite than his colleague. It seems to me incredible that when one Minister comes into this place and behaves in such a fashion, another Minister has to come in to take over. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.36) —I have not taken over. I am pointing out to the honourable senator that the information has been given to her and that I do not think it is reasonable that she should get the information and not read it, or not get one of her staff to read it, and come in here to ask people to read it out to her. That is crazy. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(8.37) —I am most disturbed at Senator Walsh's implications concerning my own questions. I have raised material which has come out of questions in the Estimates committee. I am bringing to his notice serious matters concerning the state of the Public Service. I asked questions about whether any inquiry or investigation of these matters was being carried out by his Department, which is an area which he might happen to know about, or by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I believe that it is only decent and reasonable, considering that I asked three questions, that I should get some reasonable answers. These questions have not previously been answered. They come from information which I gleaned during the Estimates committee hearing. I am representing the Australian Democrats totally at all Estimates committee hearings and in this debate and I believe that the Minister's attitude is not justified. I will repeat the three questions: First, has there been any investigation of the statistics reporting on temporary staff in the various departments which I mentioned, or in any of the departments, over the period May, June and July, other than what we have got out of this Estimates committee? Secondly, is the Minister aware of the 10,000 cases where people are on higher duties allowance within the Public Service for more than 12 months? Does he have any reasonable explanation for these people being on higher duties? There may be a quite reasonable and sensible explanation. However, if the Minister does not give an explanation in a reasonable and sensible way there is no way that the Senate can appreciate what is involved and fulfil its duties effectively. The third question relates to the operation of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and its double guessing of other departments in various policy areas. It seems that that is exactly what is happening in most cases. I could go on for a considerable amount of time on new and significant aspects of this matter. However, I was very choosy in the questions I put forward. I simply raise another question to point out that I can be less discriminating if the Minister does not answer and that I do not need to repeat the same question three or four times. A decrease in the number of Economic Planning Advisory Council staff has been announced. I am interested to know how and whether the duties of EPAC will be affected significantly by this decrease in staff. I ask Senator Walsh for reasonable answers to my questions, if necessary on notice. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(8.41) —Mr President, I think I will lay down Walsh's law of Senate practice: The less intelligence and common sense any senator has, the more space he fills up in Hansard. We have seen a couple more demonstrations of that tonight. One question Senator Vigor asked was in regard to the fact that 10,000 people in the Australian Public Service are on higher duties. At any given time more than 10 per cent, I think it is, of public servants are on leave of one sort or another. If one makes a simple translation, the figure comes out at 20,000. Ten thousand does not seem to be an extraordinarily high figure. On that ground, however, the Government announced in its Public Service streamlining decisions on 24 September, I think it was, that it is giving some attention to the question of higher duties allowances, including the possibility of imposing some discipline of a fiscal type on departments. On the question of EPAC, staff numbers were reduced during the Budget, if I remember correctly, although I am not sure by how much. I will see whether the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has any other information and supply it to the honourable senator. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.42) —Before dealing with the main burden of my comments on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet I would like to deal with the continuing problem I raised in relation to a department dealt with earlier, that is, the question of invalidity retirement in the Australian Public Service. In regard to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's central office, the Lodge and Kirribilli House, the number of people who retired on invalidity grounds was six, which is exactly the same as the number of people who retired on age grounds. In regard to the other department, I pointed out that a very large proportion of people who retire from the Public Service appear to do so on the basis of neuroses of one kind or another-certainly a far greater proportion than that in the community as a whole. This raises, at least in my mind, some questions about the basis on which invalidity retirement is granted to officers in the Public Service. Either a far greater proportion of people who have incipient neuroses enter the Public Service, which I frankly do not believe to be true, or there is some special reason why there is such a disproportionate volume of people with these sorts of difficulties leaving the Public Service. In the case of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's central office, the Lodge and Kirribilli, these are the reasons given for early retirements: Emotional instability, intellectual impairment, anxiety, reactive depression, alcoholism, and agoraphobia. Senator Townley —You can understand that if they are working at the Lodge. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I take the point. One could perhaps understand it in the circumstances. It is another situation which I believe needs the attention of the Government. Something has to be done about it. The conditions of work at the Lodge and Kirribilli House may be intolerable. The main issue I want to raise tonight is expenditure on official hospitality at state occasions by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In response to questions I asked in Senate Estimates committee hearings I have now received a note from the Department advising that the expected costs in the current financial year for the papal visit are $802,000 and for the America's Cup, $670,000. I have no problems at all with the $802,000 for the papal visit. It seems to fit in fairly appropriately with the cost of other recent tours. For example, I think the cost of the visit by the Prince and Princess of Wales was $864,000. The Queen's last visit cost about $675,000. The matter that concerns me is the $670,000 relating to the America's Cup. Why is the Government spending $675,000 of taxpayers' money providing hospitality in relation to the America's Cup? We are all aware of the fact that a few years ago, in the euphoria of champagne corks popping, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised $30m of Federal funds towards the America's Cup in the sort of self-indulgence which is totally inappropriate for a man who is supposed to represent the interests of the average Australian. Maybe he was a little light-headed because of the champagne bath he was having; but in the sober light of day it is disgraceful, coming from a government which claims falsely that it is showing restraint and that it has cut government spending. Government spending is going up this year, as everyone knows, in real terms as well as in nominal terms, by about 7 per cent. We get this phoney nonsense about Government spending being cut, yet we have a classic example of the sort of self-indulgence this Prime Minister, in particular, and this Government practise when they plan to spent $670,000 on official entertainment relating to the America's Cup. I am certain that the people in the western suburbs of Sydney who are facing increasing unemployment and certainly the people in my area, the Illawarra region, where there is a very high unemployment rate, will be overjoyed to know that the Prime Minister is happily spending $670,000 on entertainment and hospitality relating to the America's Cup. This is fairly typical of the Prime Minister, however, who has decided, as we found out during the Senate Estimates committee hearing when I asked these questions, that there is a special need to do up Kirribilli House. Kirribilli House has for many years been used chiefly for distinguished guests from overseas. That, at least, was the statement made by the previous Prime Minister on 24 September 1976. The final report in May 1979 of the Committee on Official Establishments said: The Committee believes that Kirribilli House is admirably suited for use as an official guest facility and that such use should be continued in the future. Instead of being used for that purpose, it is now the Prime Minister's official Sydney residence. He sold his home in Melbourne. He does not like Melbourne any more. He says that there is a much more pleasant view from the foreshores of Sydney Harbour. As a result Kirribilli House has been expropriated, if you like, as the Prime Minister's Sydney residence, at considerable expense to the people of Australia. What concerns me about this is that not only are the running expenses considerable but also major repairs are now required to be done on the building because the Prime Minister says that he needs them. There is no doubt that the building needs something done to it. The 1979 report of the Committee on Official Establishments said: In many respects Kirribilli House is in poor condition. Almost every room of the building is faulty as a result of poor original foundation work; settling; damp penetration; and outmoded, faulty and inefficient plumbing. Hydraulic, electrical and mechanical services are mostly inadequate, overloaded, unserviceable and some need replacement. For all of these reasons the Department of Construction, Sydney, was asked to carry out an architectural-engineering survey of the main residence which resulted in a detailed report entitled `Kirribilli House-Structural/Maintenance Report'. The matters requiring correction were outlined in that report. The Committee-I support its conclusion-then said: The Committee believes that the principal maintenance recommendations contained in the structural/maintenance report of the Department of Construction should be implemented as soon as possible. That was said in May 1979. The previous Prime Minister clearly took the view that while it was important that this work be done it was not essential and in terms of priorities other, more important things, should be done with the money belonging to the taxpayer which is entrusted to the Government. As a result, apart from some repairs, guttering, roofing and so on the major structural things were not done because they were not considered to be of sufficiently high priority. That was when Mr Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister. Now that Mr Hawke occupies Kirribilli House as his personal residence magically this has all become urgent. Senator Townley —Very urgent. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Townley says, it is very urgent indeed. Is it urgent because the Department has provided some additional advice or information? Is it because the Department has pressed the matter? I will outline the response in the Senate Estimates Committee when I asked that question. I asked: In respect of stage 2 of the restoration of Kirribilli House, is that urgent restoration? The departmental officer replied: It is urgent and essential. We are under directions from the Prime Minister that it be in that category. Senator Townley —From the Prime Minister. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That was a direction from the Prime Minister; so we know why this money-roughly half a million dollars, from memory-is being spent on Kirribilli House. That is, of course, on top of the half a million dollars spent on the Lodge in the previous six months. This kind of self-indulgence comes at a time when the economy is under strain, when we are all being called to pull in our belts, except for the Prime Minister. It is extraordinary that with a straight face he should proceed with this kind of self-indulgent expenditure. While these repairs are going on and the Lodge is being made more comfortable the Prime Minister uses his personal Sydney residence. Senator Townley —He is flying back and forth in his VIP jet, I'll bet. It would be interesting to have a look at that use. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That may be so but the important thing is that while this is going on the Senate need not be concerned about the Prime Minister's comfort. While these renovations are going on over five months he is staying at the Regent of Sydney. I find it most strange that if there is a genuine concern by the Government about the saving of money-- Senator Townley —Who pays for it? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —It is paid for by the taxpayers of Australia. If there is a genuine attempt by the Government to save money how about it starting right at home among its own self-indulgent expenditures? In relation to the previous Department we have seen a 60 per cent increase in the cost of the letterheads that Ministers deem it appropriate to use, as against the letterheads used by members of parliament, departments and so on, which are not embossed. These small items which the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) may consider to be only inconsequential represent an attitude. I do not know whether half a million dollars on Kirribilli House or another half a million dollars on the Lodge is inconsequential. Perhaps I have a different idea of what is significant. The sense of self-indulgence of the Prime Minister and the Government appears to know no bounds when it affects their own comfort. We have seen that sort of thing in relation to the enthusiasm of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about returning to Canberra by VIP jet to stay at his living away from home location. As I said earlier, I think it proper that Kirribilli House be renovated and improved. I accept that there are structural defects in that building but I wonder why at this time of genuine crisis in Australia there is any need for this sort of money to be spent on this kind of self-indulgence. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(8.55) —I am advised that the renovations at Kirribilli House were done after reports by the Official Establishments Trust and the Department of Housing and Construction. The Prime Minister has directed that only urgent and essential work be carried out as recommended by the Trust. The question of waste or the misapplication of taxpayers' funds necessarily has a subjective element. I will give another example since Senator Michael Baume purports to be interested in waste. By a decision made during the term of the previous Government, former Chief Justice Garfield Barwick received a judicial pension of approximately $68,000 a year. I will get the precise figures tomorrow if anybody wants them. In addition, he receives a parliamentary pension in excess of $20,000 a year. Therefore, Sir Garfield Barwick is drawing a double dip of the order of $90,000 a year, funded by taxpayers and paid to the greatest facilitator of tax evasion that this country has ever seen. In the eyes of the people who benefited from the tax evasion rorts of the 1960s and 1970s no doubt he earned that money. But in the eyes of the people who had to pay the bill not only for the scandalous judgments which he brought down and influenced in the High Court of Australia, which made taxpaying voluntary for the privileged sections of the community, but also in his retirement, having facilitated tax evasion throughout his judicial life, he double dips for $90,000 a year at the expense of taxpayers for his double pension granted during the period of the previous Government. Whether that is fair and square is another matter. The double dipping problem could be fixed only by retrospective legislation. The idea of legislating retrospectively or recommending to the Cabinet that retrospective legislation should be introduced has appealed to me but knowing the attitude of the people sitting across the aisle in this place who, so they say, are committed absolutely in principle to opposition to any form of retrospective legislation, it would be a waste of time. However, if that is not an immutable principle and the Opposition indicates that it would be willing to support retrospective legislation which would cut out Sir Garfield Barwick's double dip and his $90,000 a year taxpayer-funded pension, I will certainly recommend to Cabinet that something be done about it. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.57) —I reluctantly rise to respond to that extraordinary comment by the Minister for Finance. The whole point of what I was trying to say before that extraordinary and irrational outburst by the Minister was that at present we are in a time of crisis. Perhaps the Minister has not noticed that yet. That is why when other arrangements have been made, for example, to pay the former Prime Minister, E. G. Whitlam, extraordinary amounts for matters including five trips to and from Geneva to take part in what could best be described as a talkfest on the Constitution, if the Minister wants to engage in that kind of stuff we will give it to him blow by blow. What I was seeking to do was on a slightly more elevated plane than that on which the Minister is used to debate. I was talking about a specific problem relating to our present crisis. This Prime Minister has chosen this time to spend $1m in a self-indulgent upgrading of his accommodation, plus everything else. Also, he has chosen to involve himself and his Government in entertainment expenses of $670,000 for the America's Cup races in Western Australia. All I have to say to the Minister is that if he cannot distinguish the fact that this kind of self-indulgence is dramatically inappropriate at this time, I can understand how enormously unsuccessful he was in bringing about any cuts in government expenditure this year because, as Minister for Finance, it was his responsibility to reduce spending. All he did was cut what some Ministers wanted to spend and what their projects would have involved spending had they proceeded uncut this year. These, of course, were the projects that were added to by this Government. For example, $2.5 billion of new expenditure programs were added in its first Budget and another $1.3 billion-odd was added in its second Budget. Senator Townley —Up go the taxes. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That is absolutely right; paid for by taxes. These were the increased spending items that this Government cut with a great flourish saying `we have cut spending' when in fact Government spending this year under this Minister, who is supposed to be in charge of cutting, is going up by 6.9 per cent and is also increasing in real terms to the highest level ever in Australia's history, after inflation is accounted for. And it is under this Minister. What an extraordinary hide he has to participate in this debate in this way. The reality is that this Government is a self-indulgent government and this Minister pretends to be careful, pretends to be the person who is enforcing restraint upon this Government when in fact he is not doing so. The style of his intervention tonight indicates the full extent of this recognition of his own failure. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Trade Proposed expenditure, $245,869,000. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.02) —I was hoping the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, might be relieved by another Minister. He told us he was going at 9 o'clock. I sincerely hope that another Minister will relieve him because I do not believe he is capable of answering the questions in this area. I ask the Minister, in relation to the new integrated system of cargo control and clearance being set up, whether he can give some indication of the situation when the goods have left the control of the Australian Customs Service and are later found to be damaged or incomplete-they may have been stolen along the way-after they have been paid for under this new system at the point of entry into Australia? What recompense is available to the people who import those goods? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.03) —I do not know. Senator Gareth Evans should be in the chamber in a minute. I do not know whether any officials present have an answer. It would appear not. I will try to provide an answer by taking the question on notice. (Quorum formed) Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.04) —I feel as though it might be a question of being out of the frying pan and into the fire but I now ask Senator Gareth Evans whether he can tell me a little about the new integrated cargo control and clearance system. I hope the Minister is at full bottle on it. Senator Gareth Evans —I cannot tell you any- thing about that but I will say it with a lot more decorum than my predecessor. Senator WALTERS —Perhaps Senator Evans can find out from the officers who are available to him at the moment about the degree of security. Under the present system the cargo being moved from the discharge point to Tasmania is screened by Customs officers in Tasmania prior to its removal. The proposed system of monitoring by electronic media with only 10 per cent being checked does not appear to guarantee a greater control over prohibited imports and once goods have left the control of Customs and are later found to be damaged or incomplete I believe the importers are not eligible for a refund of duty. Can the Minister explain what arrangements have been made for situations such as that? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.06) —All that I am able to tell the honourable senator is that it is a matter for the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Australian Customs Service within it rather than anything to do with the Department of Trade. There are no representatives of that Department here. The best I can do is undertake to take the question on notice. We will do all we can to give the honourable senator an answer. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.06) —I have a few very short questions concerning the Department of Trade. Firstly, I want to get some indication from the Department of Trade of what measures the Department is currently taking to try to curb our rising invisibles debt. We have been talking about this for some time; that is, trying to get an insurance market, trying to get local transport companies involved, and there does not appear to be any direct action currently in this area. We seem to be being treated as a type of big quarry in the south exporting minerals and possibly some primary produce when they are not completely priced out of the markets by dumping practices of other countries. This brings me to the second question, which relates to the new round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade talks with the various developing countries. I congratulate the Government and the Department on this measure. The Cairns talks were obviously highly successful. They are followed by the Uruguay round which seems to be moving us towards better understanding with other developing countries. I would like to know the direct outcome of these talks, which are fairly costly in terms of the budgets of the Department of Trade. Will these negotiations extend to full negotiations for a new world economic order and for some system of world economic justice? The last question I have in this area relates to the closing down of the Peruvian Embassy. I shall seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a couple of sections of an article which describes the closing of the Peruvian Embassy. I ask: Why are we closing down the Embassy in Peru? Is it not to our trade advantage to keep up relations with a country that has such a forward-looking and effective way of tackling some of the trade and financial problems which are facing it? Certainly, it appears to be more effective than a number of the other Latin American countries. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the two sections of the article. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Peru embassy closure linked to Lima exit By Ross Peake The Government of Peru will close its embassy in Canberra, apparently in a direct response to the closure of the Australian Embassy in Lima. The Peruvian Ambassador, Mr Bedoya Delboy, has told the Federal Government the post will be closed, but has offered to retain a charge d'affaires. This would be a much lower level of representation than the present mission of an ambassador and two other diplomats. . . . Peru was a net food importer of meat, milk, grain and oil. Australian exports to Peru have grown from $3.7 million in 1983 to $14.2 million in 1985, while imports in the same period have fallen from $5.2 million to $4.9 million. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.10) —Senator Vigor has raised three matters. As to invisibles, I see his point, so to speak. We are doing our best to increase-- Senator Michael Baume —You can see the invisibles! Senator GARETH EVANS —Very good, Senator; you picked it up. We are doing our best to tackle that particular problem, not least in the transport area. It is not a function of the Department of Trade but certainly Mr Peter Morris, the Minister for Transport, has responded with a great deal of vigour to the concern of the Government and Australian traders that not enough is going into Australians bottoms as a result, no doubt, of the notorious difficulties of costs so far as Australian shipping is concerned. A lot of detailed attention is being given to that. Reports are being written and the trade union movement is displaying a lot of interest in adopting a more rational approach to this matter in the interests of expanding Australian shipping generally, which it is acknowledged can only be done in an environment where costs are more competitive than traditionally has been the case. If we can make an impact in transport, a lot else will follow from that. There are difficulties on the insurance side because the local reinsurance market is necessarily quite small by international standards. The big risk takers will go on being Lloyds and the major insurance markets overseas; but we will do our best, because we acknowledge the problems in that area, to pick up more of that particular cake rather than seeing it go off-shore. The point also needs to be made about the increasing significance that services are playing in our trade account. That is the other side of the invisibles coin-the selling of Australian services overseas. There is also the obviously increasing role that tourism is playing in attracting funds of that kind. There are many points to be made about that but we acknowledge the force of Senator Vigor's argument. As to his second concern, I accept gracefully on behalf of Mr Dawkins, the Minister for Trade, the congratulations that the Australian Democrats have offered him for what was a splendid performance on Australia's part and the third group of fair traders-the so-called Cairns group-at Punta del Este. The Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is, of course, an extended process which is going to go on, on past precedents, for three or four years. We cannot expect to see any positive results showing up on the board at this early stage. A great deal of negotiation is going on at the moment on establishing the procedural regime within which these various substantive matters will be pursued. Whether at the end of the day we will have anything which could be remotely described as a new international economic order is a matter of some speculation, but it is everybody's hope that we will in fact work quite substantial improvements in the international trade environment as a result of this initiative. As to the Peruvian Embassy, it is a matter of regret that budgetary priorities forced us to close that very small post. As I recall, it had only two Australian-based officers, both of whom were, I think, Foreign Affairs rather than Trade personnel. There was never an Australian-based trade officer in Peru. There was and will continue to be a locally engaged person on the ground there performing marketing functions. So to the extent that there are opportunities for further trade development there they will continue and have not been put at risk by the closure of that particular post. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.13) —In respect of the Department of Trade, I want very briefly to refer to a similar matter to that I raised with other departments, and that relates to stationery. I noted earlier in respect of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce that there is a significant difference between the cost of stationery used by that Minister or the departmental head as against the ordinary letterhead used by the Department. I noted that senators and members of the House of Representatives have stopped using the expensively different vergo-type paper with a raised coat of arms and so on in the cause of economy. I am intrigued to note that this cause is not being pursued in the Department of Trade, as it is not being pursued by all the Ministers in this Government, who maintain the self-indulgence that is set by their Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his Kirribilli House activities. I note in the written responses to questions on notice I received from the Department of Trade that the unit cost, based on a ream, for the bond and bank letterhead used in ministerial matters is approximately $44 and for departmental letterhead it is only $8. In other words, the paper that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) uses is about 5 1/2 times as costly as the paper used by the Department. This kind of self-indulgence is just nonsense at a time when Australia is supposed to be tightening its belt and this Government is talking about restraint. Let us see some restraint from the Ministers who should know better. Let us see what the difference is between ordinary letterhead and what the Minister insists on having, despite restraint. All the letterheads are in raised printing with black ink. The paper quality is superior to normal bond. Ministerial envelopes have the Minister's name vergo-typed on the front and the crest vergo-typed on the flap. The envelopes are white and the Minister has two different letterheads and `with compliments' slips. This means that in the current year something like $8,000 is going to be wasted on paper that is absolutely unnecessary. The ministerial paper is going to cost something like $10,000. It could be done on ordinary paper with ordinary printing for something like $2,000. That is just one department and one Minister and it spreads throughout the whole of this Government's administration and its bureaucracy. It is interesting to note the different prices that some departments seem to be able to negotiate for their ordinary letterheads. This is a matter at which I think the Government could have a good look. For example, the Department of Trade says that is can get its ordinary departmental paper for $8 a ream. Austrade, which is another part of the Department-what used to be the Trade Commissioner Service-pays $13 a ream for its standard stationery. However, it pays something like $60 a ream for its ministerial stationery. But ordinary stationery which is used in enormous volumes by the departments of this Government, as those on the receiving end of material from them can testify, costs $8 a ream for the Department of Trade, $13 a ream for Austrade but $25 a ream for the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce-three times as much for ordinary letterhead. What is going on? Is there not an effective purchasing arrangement within this Government to ensure that the departments can get the best deal? Why does the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce pay three times as much for its standard letterhead paper as does the Department of Trade? It is just an extraordinary situation and I cannot see why that question should not be pursued by the Government if, once again, it is genuine in seeking to cut its expenditure. For heaven's sake, three times the price from one department to another is just untenable. I hope that these activities of the Coalition Waste Watch Committee, of which I am Chairman, drawing attention to the sorts of things that the Government should have seen for itself will bring about some genuine action by the Government to cut unnecessary expenditure. This appears to be a small amount of money, $8 a ream, but, considering how many reams of paper are used by the ever expanding bureaucracy under this Government-it has appointed 12,000 extra public servants-what appears to be a small amount certainly ends up being a very substantial volume of money paid for by the Australian taxpayer. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Science Proposed expenditure, $541,025,000. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.20) —I wish to raise four short points in regard to the Department of Science. The first relates to the management of intellectual property within Australia. Despite considerable questioning of the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office of the Department of Science during the Estimates committee hearing, I was unable to ascertain any type of policy position on the future plans for developing the handling of intellectual property. Currently there are very large backlogs in patents and design registration. The Department has closed down its information technology transfer unit, which described to various industrial people what patents were available. It would be very useful if the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) could indicate to me what use a patent system is if we cannot have reasonable retrieval services on patents. Is this not a case of handing over the whole area to the patent attorneys, rather than using modern technology? It seemed to be a step in the right direction to have a unit which could answer general questions on intellectual property in an effective way. That was brought in with great fanfare in 1984, and closed down with little or no noise in this Budget. I am very interested in knowing what plans there are for providing that type of service to industry. I know that it does not come under the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. It remains with the Department of Science. That may be why it has been cut out. The second item about which I would like to ask concerns Antarctica, which comes under the Department of Science. Maybe the Minister, with his knowledge of foreign affairs, can help me. I have had reported to me that the United States is planning to split its operations in Antarctica into civil and military operations. This seems very strange, considering the nature of the Antarctic Treaty, which forbids military activities. It would be quite useful to get some comment on what knowledge the Australian Government has of this and whether we are co-operating with that type of activity. The third question relates to the cutting down of meteorological services. It seems to me to be wrong to cut down on meteorological services throughout Australia. We have enough problems predicting our weather over the whole continent without cutting down the number of stations we have. We do not seem to be replacing the services with adequate satellite services. Is the Minister convinced that the safety of aircraft and the long term development of our planning for weather are being properly managed by closing down various meteorological sites? The fourth item I would like to raise concerns the very dramatic cuts in the marine sciences and technologies grants scheme. There have been cuts of approximately 25 per cent this year, which is the major slash to the Science budget. Considering that we have in the Great Barrier Reef some of the most important areas of reef in the world, this is having a devastating effect in those northern areas. I have been deluged with letters from as far north as James Cook University-I have received three or four letters from various people who have been affected by this grant-down to the Australian Museum's Division of Vertebrate Zoology in Sydney and the University of Tasmania, which have been affected by the cuts in this scheme. What has actually been done to supplement the marine sciences and technologies grants scheme? What is the rationale behind these cuts? In order to cut down on the time of debate, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard one letter, as an example, from Associate Professor J. S. Lucas, of James Cook University, who sets out the points of argument in this matter much more cogently than I could, without taking up a lot of the Committee's time. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY OF NORTH QUEENSLAND SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Department of Zoology 30 September 1986 Senator David Vigor, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Vigor, Re: Marine Sciences and Technologies Grants Scheme I write from a personal viewpoint as a tropical marine scientist, with several decades of research experience. This is to express my concern at the cut of approximately 25% in allocations to the Marine Sciences and Technologies Grants Scheme in 1987, and suggestion of abolition of the MSTGS. To explain this concern, I will describe the changes that I have seen in marine science over the past decade. I was appointed a Lecturer in Zoology at James Cook University, Townsville, in 1968. My first trip to the Great Barrier Reef was on a Hayles ferry chartered for the day by the Townsville Shell Club. It was only after a series of monthly Shell Club trips to the reef had been cancelled because of rough weather. Under these conditions, there was no point in attempting to study animals on the Reef and I lowered my sights and worked on the local estuarine and mangrove fauna, which only required dinghies and modest field equipment. The postgraduate student projects that I supervised during this era were in this inshore environment, for the same reason. About this time, the Australian Conservation Foundation published a review of ``The Future of the Great Barrier Reef''. Professor Bill Stephenson (then Professor Zoology at University of Queensland) wrote the chapter on Marine Biology and referred to the Royal Society Expedition to the Great Barrier Reef (ca. 1929!) as the most comprehensive study of reef organisms. In other words, the most comprehensive study of the Great Barrier Reef had been made by a group of English men and women forty years before. This situation has totally changed, as you are aware. It would not be presumptuous to say that Australia is now at the forefront of marine research on coral reefs. This was evident at the interdisciplinary fifth International Coral Reef Congress in Tahiti last year. It has been recognised by awarding the Sixth International Coral Reef Congress to Australia, specifically to James Cook University, in 1988. The change in Australia's status in coral reef research has come about partly through the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; through the establishment of further marine stations on the GBR and research vessels. However, Australia's eminence in coral reef research is also based on University research and the training of top-class graduates in this field. Australia's eminence will only continue as the Universities produce top-class graduates. The provision of MSTGS funding has been the major factor in lifting the quality and quantity of marine research in Australian Universities and coral reef research in particular. Reef research is necessarily expensive due to logistical factors and first class research requires appropriate equipment. However, in terms of the money put in versus the research output and status for Australia that have resulted, it has been money very well spent. My own research programs reflect the changes that have occurred in the past decade. They are now directed to animals that are characteristic of coral reefs: Crown-of-thorns starfish and giant clams. I supervise five Ph.D. students and one M.Sc. student who are working on coral reef animals. Both research programs that I am involved with, population dynamics of Crown-of-thorns starfish and giant clam mariculture, are multidisciplinary and involve international collaboration. The former is funded by MSTGS, the latter by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. The giant clam mariculture study could equally well be funded by MSTGS, as mariculture is one of the nominated research areas for support by MSTGS. If the MSTGS funding is taken away and we go back to university research budgets of a few thousand dollars a year, we go back to working on the shore again. One can still do quite interesting research on shores. However, coral reef science is where the action is and Australia has the greatest coral reef complex in the world. It would be a tragedy for Australia to lose its recently-gained pre-eminent position in this field. This will not happen immediately, if MSTGS funding is withdrawn; but as University research and graduate training is weakened, this will in time be reflected in the whole research enterprise. Yours sincerely, J. S. LUCAS Associate Professor in Zoology Senator VIGOR —I thank the Committee. I seek some information from the Minister on what is being done to keep up our excellent reputation in marine science, in the light of these 25 per cent cuts. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.26) —Senator Vigor has raised four points. As to the first point in regard to intellectual property and the operations of the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office, particularly with regard to getting information of a retrieval kind, all I can say is that increased resources are being applied to the backlog which exists in this area. It is acknowledged that it is a difficult problem and will take time to resolve; but people are not indifferent to, or ignorant of, it. Senator Vigor's views will no doubt be taken, as always, closely into account. As to Antarctica and the suggestion that the United States is planning to split its civil and military operations, I do not have any information on that, either wearing my Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs hat or in my current task of conveying the views of the Department of Science. I will endeavour to find out about it, but that may be a question Senator Vigor might care to pursue in other ways. As to the winding back, allegedly, of meteorological stations and meteorological activity, there has been a rationalisation, I am told, which has proceeded in this area but it is not one that will reduce in any way the meteorological services that are provided. It is a matter of doing things in a different and more cost efficient way. As to the final point about marine science, there has been a cutback, again as part of the general budgetary discipline with which we are all familiar, by way of direct grants of various kinds in that area. But I am told and, indeed, can assert from my own departmental experience, that there has been a steady increase over the years, and again this year, in the funding that is by all means made available to marine science. I refer in particular to such avenues for expenditure on marine science as the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Rig Seismic continental margins program. I am not in a position to give any specific information about what precisely is happening so far as marine and environmental science is concerned, about which Senator Vigor demonstrates, in common with his Party, a particular passion. I do not believe there has been any significant winding back of anything of enormous practical significance in that area. Again, I am not able to give him any further information this evening. I can assure him only that his remarks, as always, have been taken closely into account, and remind him that he ought not to underestimate the general commitment that we, as a sea-girt continent, obviously have. We have not in any way wound back our commitment to excellence in marine science. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.28) —I would like to raise a different matter with regard to the Department of Science. It relates to the Department's liability to fringe benefits tax. The Department was asked whether it had allocated funds to cover this new tax when the Estimates committee hearings were held, I think in September. At that stage the Department advised the Committee that total liability to pay fringe benefits tax was estimated at $823,500 for the current financial year. That figure excluded the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, for which there is another $352,000. So between those two alone, about $1.2m in fringe benefits tax was to be paid. We asked for details of this. The Department responded that the amount of $1.2m would be reduced following what it called technical amendments to the FBT legislation announcement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Some technical amendments! They will reduce that amount on average, I think, by something like 10 per cent. As I read the legislation it seems that total collections will go down by only 10 per cent. I presume that that is the sort of incidence that will take place with this Department; so the Government will still be paying well over $1m to itself at great administrative cost from its left hand pocket to its right hand pocket. As the Department of Science takes money voted to it by the Parliament but, of course, raised in taxes from the people of Australia, it puts it in its pocket and then takes it out and gives it to the Australian Taxation Office. It is simply another way of raising money from the taxpayers of Australia but it is doing it in this nonsensical and administratively very expensive way. As I have said, $1.2m is being taken from the Government's left hand pocket and put into its right hand pocket and clerks and forms and heaven knows what will be involved in performing this charade. The Department of Science is only one of many departments involved. I raised this matter because the figures I have here, at least, are of some substance. When we asked why this money was being spent, the details of it and how many people were involved, the Department said that it found it difficult to answer those questions although it did say that fringe benefits provided to departmental officers fall within the following categories: Cars, expense payments-that is official phones-living away from home allowances, housing, entertainment and other fringe benefits such as reunion fares. The number of members of the Department who receive fringe benefits will vary annually and no specific details for the 1986-87 financial year are available. As an example, officers in remote locales are entitled to travel to their home stations while on annual recreation leave and this will attract fringe benefits tax. However, specific details on the number of officers utilising this entitlement will not be known until those officers apply for leave. The reason I raise this matter is that the recipients of benefits which are subject to the fringe benefits tax in the Department are not tax cheats or all the unpleasant things that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has said in the past should relate to people who are in this category. He said that whenever the Opposition has sought to point out absurdities in the fringe benefits situation it is defending tax cheats. Is the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) seriously suggesting that employees of the Department of Science and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, with $1.2m involved in fringe benefits tax, are the sorts of tax cheats who the Minister quite improperly alleges are the only people who are now disadvantaged by this legislation which the Opposition has promised to get rid of lock, stock and barrel? This Government cannot pretend that there is anything sensible at all in applying this kind of tax to public servants who, for heaven's sake, are not ripping off the system. The explanation in the Department of Science's documents about why this tax is paid seems to reflect exactly the sorts of considerations that apply right throughout the private sector. It seems only sensible that these amounts should be paid and why on earth Senator Walsh should suggest that anyone who speaks up on behalf of people who get allowances-for example, living away from home allowances, reunion fares and so on-should be regarded as a tax dodger and a tax cheat I do not know, except for one simple thing. The Minister has set out on a pattern of personal abuse of the Opposition. Whenever we point out anomalies or stupidities in the fringe benefits tax legislation, such as the administrative cost of pursuing the Department of Science for the tax, his sole response has been: `You are trying to protect tax cheats'. Producing evidence about the Department of Science having to pay this tax demonstrates how totally false the Minister for Finance's arguments are and how totally inappropriate and improper his attacks on the Opposition have been when we have simply sought to point out what these matters really are and what this tax is about. For example, in the CSIRO, where highly skilled people are employed, $352,000 relates to the fringe benefits tax in this way: Official cars garaged privately $205,000, employee housing $110,000, official telephones about $10,000, entertainment $2,800, reunion visits-that is, after away from home posting-$12,000 and education costs and overseas postings about $10,400. Good heavens, are the recipients of such benefits tax cheats? I now deal very briefly with the matter I have raised in respect of other departments and that is the extraordinary proportion of invalidity retirements from the Public Service relating to conditions which are very difficult to diagnose. For example, in the Department of Science there were 24 invalidity retirements last year of which 14 related to difficult to diagnose matters or clearly diagnosable neurotic matters. Of the 24 retirements three were due to repetitive strain injury, four to anxiety, one to stress, three to back injuries, one was psychiatric and two were due to depression. That kind of proportion, as I mentioned in relation to some other departments, is totally unsustainable. Something like 14 out of the 24 retirements are in the categories I have outlined. In the CSIRO, of the 43 who retired through invalidity something like 25 had conditions that were fairly difficult to diagnose. For example, eight out of the 43 who retired from the CSIRO had psychiatric conditions, 13 had bone degeneration and four repetitive strain injury. What is going on with the Public Service? Is it becoming overwhelmingly neurotic? Why are we having this extraordinary number of retirements due to neuroses and other psychiatric problems? If it relates to the nature of the persons by whom such people are employed perhaps I could understand it but it seems that this has gone beyond the bounds of reason. The Government really has to start doing something positive to stop this incredible nonsense. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.37) —I want to raise two matters under the appropriation from the Department of Science. I very strongly support the remarks Senator Michael Baume made. In particular the whole business of repetitive strain injury has become an absolute scandal. Not only is it a scandal but also it is so unique to the way in which the Australian Public Service operates at the moment that certain British commentators have taken to calling it kangaroo paw. I think that is probably a fairly apt description of the way in which it is being manipulated at the moment. The two matters I want to raise are, firstly, the extent to which public money is improperly expended in the Department of Science in the promotion of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). A little while ago we saw the production of a glossy magazine entitled Living by our wits, a selection of speeches by Barry O. Jones, Minister for Science, published by the Australian Government Publishing Service. On the cover is a large picture of the Minister for Science and inside is a large photograph of the Minister and a whole series of speeches or extracts of speeches by the Minister retelling part of his book and reproducing parts of his speeches. It is a simple advertisement for Mr Jones. No other Minister in the Commonwealth Government has seen it necessary to produce a booklet of his own speeches at public expense. Estimates Committee D asked officers of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, which is responsible for publications of the Commonwealth, whether it had any idea of the cost of this publication. They told us that there had been an initial run of 1,531 copies at a sum of $2,778.31 followed by a reprint of 1,031 copies for an additional $1,814.98. What they could not tell us was how many had been sold. Senator Gareth Evans —How many copies of your book Liberal Thinking were sold? How did the best seller go? Senator PUPLICK —Not only did it certainly outsell Living by our wits but also it did not involve the misuse of public expenditure. Nor, indeed, will the next one. I am sure that Senator Evans would be perfectly prepared to claim that none of his own publications, in attempting to advance the political cause and the political ideology which he espouses, was produced by the use of public moneys for that purpose. I am sure to that extent Senator Evans would have been outraged if somebody had suggested that Labor Essays should have been financed by Commonwealth expenditure. Nevertheless, the publication of Mr Jones, putting forward not a statement about Australian science policy but a series of ideological statements about the way in which government policies should be developed, was paid for by public funds. It is indicative, I suppose, of the way in which this Government operates that, when one then looks at the funding provided for the Australian Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office, which is provided for in these estimates-Senator Archer raised this by way of question today; I have previously raised exactly the same point with Senator Button-one sees that, despite all of the Government's protestations about the importance of the development of technological information throughout Australia, one of the decisions taken has been the closing down of the technology information function of the Australian Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office. A report was produced by the Industrial Property Advisory Committee, the Government's primary advisory body on the question of patent legislation, in August 1986. The report was entitled `Patent Information for Smaller Australian Enterprises'. That report made the point very strongly that small business in Australia was very much dependent on access to information which it received in terms of patent information through the activities of the Australian Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office. If one looks at the 1984-85 report of that Office one will see the following under the heading `Technology Information Branch Activities': The potential uses of patent information are many and varied. It was an awareness of this fact, together with the realisation that the information potential of the patent system is a sadly under-utilised resource, that led in 1984 to the creation of the Technology Information Branch . . . within the Patent Office. That report goes into considerable detail about the amount of information provided, particularly to entrepreneurial small business in Australia which cannot afford its own resources in terms of patent information, which cannot afford the fairly high fees which are charged by specialist patent attorneys around the country and which previously had access to the technology information branch of the Patent Office. Yet that has been closed down. We found when dealing with estimates on a previous occasion that trade mark applications, for instance, take up to two years to handle, that the pressures on the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office is very considerable and that, instead of taking steps to improve access to information and the ability of small business in particular to get access to this information, the Government has acted to close down the technology information function of the Office, contrary to the reports which it has had from its own primary advisory group, the Industrial Property Advisory Committee, and contrary to the reports which it has previously had from the Australian Science and Technology Council and a number of others. Senator Button gave me an answer on 23 September 1986 indicating that the reason this was done was really that, to all intents and purposes, the Government thought it could make some savings without engaging in any considerable analysis of the impact of making this decision. The Minister, in terms of responding to me on behalf of the Minister for Science, put it very much in these terms: In view of the necessity of reducing Commonwealth expenditure the Government decided that the technology information function of the Australian Patent Office would cease. Yet Senator Button, who gave me that lengthy answer on 23 September, dodged the question today. He told Senator Archer that he did not know anything about the subject and therefore was not prepared to answer Senator Archer's detailed question, despite having previously given me that information. One can look at another Government publication. The publication `Overseas Trading' of October 1986 under the heading `Patent files offer key' states: Patent files are one of the best sources for exporters and high-tech companies wanting to keep up with technological and market developments. It goes on to say how they can keep up with these developments by plugging into the technology information branch of the Australian Patent Office. But, of course, by the time this publication, which I think is an official publication of the Department of Trade, was out the Government had sabotaged that undertaking or that particular piece of advice given by the Department of Trade itself. I simply draw attention to the fact that here we have the opportunity to balance the Government's priorities in these matters. The technology information service provided by the Patent Office is cut out and eliminated as a cost saving measure in the Department of Science. But at the same time money has been expended to put the Minister's speeches in booklet form for propaganda purposes. If people want to weight up what are the priorities of the Hawke Labor Government in terms of the Department of Science, they should well consider the closing down of the technology information branch of the Patent Office at the same time as public funds have been expended to put out runs of the Minister's speeches. This is a clear indication to the Australian scientific community of where this Government's priorities in science actually lie. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.48) —A number of issues have been raised. I think the fringe benefits tax one raised by Senator Michael Baume is an old chestnut. The only quick point I would make there is that the requirement for departments to fund FBT payments out of their own departmental budgetary allocations without compensatory top-ups where discretionary payments are involved does amount to a discipline clearly on the department to haul back the area of perhaps such discretionary payments. Even if the revenue is not a net loser at the end of the day, even if the balance sheet comes out in the way that Senator Baume describes, the whole thing is not a complete nonsense; it does have an element of discipline about it. Senator Walters —Are you suggesting that you are going to cash them in? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not want to get into the endless discussion but there are forms of allowance that presumably would be taxable as fringe benefits that are of a discretionary character when people are out in the field doing various things. Some things, such as housing for officers in remote areas and so on, are clearly non-discretionary. The Budget allocation makes provision for that. But to the extent that payments that would be taxable in a private sector context are discretionary, it has to come out of departmental funding and, as such, there is an incentive on the department either not to make the payment at all or to find some other way of doing it, which is clearly difficult in a Public Service salary environment. Beyond that, the arguments are the familiar ones about the difficulty of distinguishing between some categories of allowance or benefit that are necessary incidental to the course of one's employment, on the one hand, and those which are in the nature of a perk on the other. It is enormously difficult in practice to distinguish between those. That is why the categories of the fringe benefit application have tended to be fairly broad ranging. Of course it is the case that what have been described as unintended consequences, or perhaps the possible overreach of some of the initial formulae, have been cut back by the Government's recent decisions. That is not reflected in these figures now before honourable senators. They will be clarified by the time we get to the Supplementary Estimates, and I have no doubt that the amount here identified as a FBT payment will be much reduced as a result. As to invalidity retirements, I think Senator Michael Baume has perhaps been a little sweeping in his demonstration of prejudices about anxiety, stress, depression, psychiatric disease, repetition strain injury and all the rest, which he sweepingly castigates, at least by inference, as try-ons and shonkiness of one form or another, ignoring the whole course of twentieth century medical science, which does acknowledge most of those conditions to be real and genuinely debilitating. Senator Michael Baume —In these proportions throughout the community? Senator GARETH EVANS —Well, in cases where they do exist. As to whether these proportions are excessive, I am advised that this is a matter for a Commonwealth medical officer's determination. It is not something done at a departmental level. If there happens to be a higher incidence of stress, anxiety, depression, psychiatric disease and RSI in the Department of Science than elsewhere, there may be various explanations for that. I do not believe, however, that they have to do with Senator Puplick's point about the excessively visible presence of the Minister. The rationale for that particular expenditure on a booklet is not, of course, anything so crude as vulgar self-promotion on the part of the Minister. If he should be tempted to engage in that, he can do it for free without the need to incur public funds expenditure in the process. The rationale for the booklet was simply to generate interest among as many sections of the Australian community as possible. Mr Barry Jones's speeches on national science issues clearly generate community interest with admirable force, vigour, clarity and perception and, as such, should be an occasion for congratulation that the Commonwealth is spending its money on such things rather than on publications which might not satisfy that description. As to Senator Puplick's concern about patent information, these concerns are the subject of discussion at pages 801 and 802 of Estimates Committee A report and there is nothing much I can add to what was said there. There is a recognition of the need to have information services flowing in this area if the patent system is to work effectively. We believe that information is still flowing, notwithstanding some budgetary cutbacks, which are acknowledged. To the extent that there are problems, we are happy to try to do something about them. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP B Department of Community Services Proposed expenditure, $468,642,000. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.53) —The Minister for Community Services will know that I have given notice of a few questions. I do not expect those to be answered tonight. I was wondering whether the Minister could give me the answers in writing at a convenient time. Senator GRIMES —(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) (9.53)-Certainly. I have not had time to get all the answers tonight. I could probably give some of them but, as the honourable senator says, it is probably better that I do them properly in writing in the next couple of days. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.54) —The Department of Community Services has gone some of the way towards actually saving money along the lines I have been suggesting that other departments should do. To that extent I commend the Minister for Community Services for encouraging his departmental Secretary to stop the nonsense of having a specially embossed logo and so on on his letterhead. This is now differentiated from general departmental stationery only by the inclusion of the word `Secretary' as the top line of the address. If only the Minister himself would follow that lead given by his Secretary because his ministerial stationery has the departmental logo embossed and we have discovered from the other departments that this costs between four and five times as much as the other letterhead. It appears from this answer that the Minister will be spending this year $55,000 on his ministerial letterhead. If he were to adopt the same sort of restraint that other senators and members of parliament have adopted in moving away from embossed letterheads to ordinary printed letterheads, instead of costing $55,000 it would be something like $15,000 at the most. So we have $40,000 being spent on self-indulgence by this Minister. It is part of a general trend of all Ministers in this Government to preach restraint for everyone but themselves. While I commend the Secretary to the Department for his restraint, particularly in view of the large volume of paper being used by this Department, I recommend that the Minister follow the lead of his departmental head. The number of invalidity retirements in this Department is increasing at a disturbing rate. I have dealt with other departments and complained about the high proportion of invalidity retirements as against age retirements. In the latest year, 1985-86, the Department had 11 age retirements but 12 invalidity retirements-one more than reached retirement age. Of those 12, something like seven related to ailments that are difficult to diagnose-in other words, more than half. Three were stress and anxiety, two were mental illness, one was RSI and one was depression. The point I want to make is that in this financial year the proportion will be worse. There are expected to be 17 age retirements compared to 22 invalidity retirements in this Department. I wonder why this is so, and I will be interested if the Minister can advise us why it is so. It does seem to relate to the fact that the Department previously had many permanent temporaries working in it. For example, of the 1,455 people working in the Department last year about 1,086 were employed as short term temporaries under the Public Service Act. This short term temporary situation is to be reduced in the current year and the number of full time people will increase. I do not know whether, when we get full time people in these departmental situations, we end up with a far higher invalidity or, as we saw in some other departments, sickness ratio. It seems to me that this Department should examine the problem because in the coming year it will face more people retiring through invalidity than retiring through reaching retirement age. Whenever that situation exists, surely it should be a signal to the Minister in charge that at least something should be done. I am not accusing any of the people involved of anything. All I am saying is that that ratio does seem to be inappropriate. If the level of age retirements in the Public Service is so low that the number of invalidity retirements far exceeds it, something is wrong within the Public Service or within those individual departments. I urge the Government to do something to fix this. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.49) —I am sorry Senator Michael Baume believes that I am self-indulgent because I have embossed paper used for correspondence in my office. I could not care less whether it is embossed or not, and I am sure he realises that. The fact that it is embossed means that I have no desire to throw out all the embossed stuff. Senator Michael Baume —Is this what you are spending this year? Senator GRIMES —Hold your horses. The honourable senator gets up here and yaffles on, and does not want to listen to anybody's answer. I point out to him that in the Estimates Committee there were two Liberal senators who said that they believed that Ministers' correspondence should be embossed. I did not agree with them. I could not care less whether my correspondence is embossed or not. I am sorry that I, as a Minister, do not take notice of whether it will be embossed next year or not. To keep Senator Michael Baume happy I will ensure that any further correspondence paper I use is not embossed. I could not care less about it. If it will keep him happy and enable him to sleep better at nights I will not use that paper. The reason that there are such a large number of short term temporaries in my Department is that it was a new department. In establishing it we did not get the full number of people from the pre-existing department. We have short term temporaries and in future years that will decrease. The fact that there are a large number of invalidity retirements in the Commonwealth Public Service is well known to this Government and is well known particularly to my colleague the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). We intend to do something about it. I merely make the point that it is nothing new. It has been going on far too long. It existed under previous governments and we will do something about it. The estimates for future invalidity retirements in my Department, in the strange way that this system operates, were provided by the Public Service Board. I will seek an explanation from it to get an answer for Senator Baume. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $169,955,350. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.01) —I have given the Minister for Community Services some questions which he could perhaps answer for me in writing. I take up one point regarding invalidity. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) will remember that the invalidity figures in the estimates for retirements, particularly for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, were greater than those for his own Department of Community Services, and that we talked about the extraordinary number of cases of invalidity retirement that occurred in this particular Department. The Minister has just said that this is nothing new, that it was the case under previous governments, and that he and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) intended to do something about it. I refer the Minister to an answer I have just received which gives the ratios in the following order: In 1980-81 there were four retirements on invalidity grounds versus 17 on age; in 1981-82 there were 17 each; in 1982-83 there were 11 invalidity retirements versus 17 on age. This Government came to power in 1983. From then on there was a reversal. In 1983-84 there were 10 invalidity retirements and five on age; in 1984-85 there were 18 invalidity retirements and 12 on age; and in 1985-86 there were 22 invalidity retirements and eight on age. It seems as though that figure is increasing. I am not blaming the Government; I am just pointing out to the Minister that there is an increase. I am delighted to know that he will make some inquiries because, like him, I was very concerned about the numbers in this particular Department. In the answers I got on repetition strain injuries, of 44 cases reported in 1985-86, six retired on invalidity grounds at a cost to the public of $93,480. The answer said that this reflected a 54 per cent decrease in cases over 1984-85 and a 37 per cent decrease in costs. Those six people were fairly young-27, 29, 33, 55 and 56 years of age. Can the Minister tell me what checks are made on, say, the 27, the 29 and the 33-year-olds? If these people retire on the ground of invalidity due to RSI, what checks are made to ensure that they do not take up other work? I would have thought that someone with RSI could perhaps be moved to another job within the Department. If this were unable to be done-as it obviously was-what check is made on these people and how often? What checks are made, say, on the 27-year old who retires for life on RSI grounds? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.06) —As Senator Walters pointed out from those figures, most of the changes in invalidity retirements, which she talked about, have been due in recent years to repetition strain injury. There has been a gradual increase in the number. One can make the sort of comment about RSI that I heard Senator Puplick make-I think it was his voice I recognised-and joke about kangaroo paw and other things and therefore imply that these people are malingering, or one can take the view that in fact something in the method of work causes such an increase in RSI. There may be inadequate treatment or, in fact, absolutely incorrect treatment. But whatever it is-and most people believe that a combination of physical and psychological factors is involved-I do not think it really helps for remarks to be made such as those made by Senator Puplick, but then it is a free country. Those people who are invalided out-and I must say, as I said before, that I share Senator Walters's concern that people are invalided out at such an early age in such a condition-are reviewed at least annually to see about their fitness for future work. That review is done on people by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, as it is done on all people who are invalided out under the Commonwealth employees compensation legislation. Senator Walters said that there has been considerable variation in the years from 1980 to 1986. There was a sudden and dramatic increase from 1980-81 to 1981-82. I certainly would not imply that that was due to the Government in power at the time, any more than the honourable senator would imply that any increase was due to another government at another time. RSI is a problem and no one is pretending that it is not. Certainly in some departments, including my own, there seems to be a greater success rate of treatment and rehabilitation than there has in the past. One wonders whether it is a similar sort of thing that occurred when the steel nib was introduced and when the typewriter was introduced. We will just have to see. I do not think it is very sensible to do as Senator Puplick did and imply that all people with RSI are suffering from some condition involving malingering. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.08) —The matter of invalidity retirement to which the Minister has just referred and which Senator Walters raised prompted Estimates Committee B to express in its report to the Senate a little concern about information provided to it by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It noted in its report: During its examination of proposed expenditure for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Committee was informed that the ratio of invalidity to age retirements during 1985-86 was 1.7 to 1. This is very high indeed. The report went on: Information subsequently provided to the Committee by the Department indicates that this evidence was incorrect and that the ratio was in fact 2.75 to 1. Almost 3 : 1. It is incredible that that ratio should exist. There are three times as many people retiring through invalidity than through reaching the retirement age. The report continued: The Committee was further advised that the number of officers retiring on invalidity grounds has exceeded the number who retired-- as Senator Walters said- on age grounds since 1983-84. It noted that a similar situation also exists in the Department of Health, the Department of Community Services and the Department of Social Security. The report continued: The Committee was also informed that under current arrangements there is a significant incentive for officers to be retired on invalidity grounds prior to their planned retirement age. The Committee wishes to express its concern about this matter and informs the Senate that it will continue to monitor the situation at future Estimates Committee hearings. As Chairman of the Waste Watch Committee, I am overjoyed that the Committee's report to the Senate makes that statement because there is no doubt that the cost to the nation in invalidity retirement payments, which totals something like $350m a year, clearly has been boosted by extraordinarily large proportions of public servants retiring on invalidity grounds from individual departments and, as I mentioned earlier, in individual States, particularly Victoria. Unfortunately, we cannot tell in each of the departments where the bulk of these curious invalidity retirements take place. The point the Committee made that under current arrangements there is a significant incentive for officers to be retired on invalidity grounds prior to their planned retirement age needs to be stressed. That does not necessarily mean that the officers themselves seek to be retired on invalidity grounds. It may well be that managers within the bureaucracy find it a convenient way of getting rid of people they do not want. This concerns me. It may well be a very expensive way-expensive for the taxpayer-of getting rid of officers of the Public Service who are no longer required by management. Part of the reason, for example, for the curiously high Victorian figures may well be a consistent trend towards moving officers of the Public Service from departments centred in Melbourne to Canberra. A lot of the neuroses we keep hearing about may arise from the fact that the thought of going to Canberra makes people sick. Perhaps they would rather stay in Melbourne and be invalided out than make the trip up here and have to live in this environment. The reality is that, whether it emerges from the officers initiative or whether it is a convenient method used by management to get rid of surplus people, it ends up being a massive additional cost burden on the taxpayers of Australia and it should be stopped. I am glad that the Minister has expressed some concern about the issue in a responsible way. I can assure him that my activities on behalf of the Waste Watch Committee in pointing out the facts are equally responsible. Initially, the Department made a significant error about the ratio of invalidity to age retirements. This leads me to another question, which was raised in the report of Estimates Committee A but which is relevant to this matter nonetheless. The report said that during the hearings on the 1986-87 Estimates the Committee noted a wide discrepancy in the capacity of officials to provide an appropriate level of information in response to questions from honourable senators. It stated that this was observable both within the same Department and within different departments. I underline the merit of the point made in the Senate Estimates Committee A report that there are far too many instances where either the wrong information or no information is provided, with the result that one has to rely on questions on notice, which in many instances one cannot pursue, even though one would think that the public servants should be well briefed on the subjects concerned. We have to recognise that there are continuing problems across a whole range of Public Service departments relating to the question of invalidity and age retirements, brought up by the Estimates Committee B report. I assure the Minister that I will be encouraging him, or his successor after he goes on to greater things, to do what he can to improve the performance of his Department. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.17) —I would like to follow up some fluctuations in staffing in the Department which were revealed by questions asked in the Estimates committee hearings regarding the number of temporary staff in each of the sub-programs on the last day of May, June and July this year. The program budgeting system has meant that it is rather difficult to get out costing figures. I noted, particularly in regard to this Department, that in one or two places the program budget did not balance. However, an explanation for this was given at the Estimates committee hearing. Numbers of temporary staff in the Department dropped markedly at the end of June, which is when the official statistics on the number of temporary staff are collected. I believe that that must have had some impact on the operations of the Department. Quite a few more people were taken on in July. Post-arrival services and temporary staff numbers were back to the May level by July. These statistics were incorporated at the time of the examination of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet estimates for the Public Service. I asked the question of Senator Walsh but did not receive an answer. The areas of policy co-ordination and management and office support lost 28 temporary staff in June and then picked up six in July. It seems as though very large numbers of staff are completing specific tasks outlined in contracts. This may be an attempt to circumvent unrealistic staff limits. I would be very pleased to get some explanation from officers of the Department as to why this phenomenon is occurring. I would like an idea of why such large numbers of contract staff are needed, especially in the policy co-ordination, management and office support areas. The additional information to the Committee indicated that the area offices of Albury-Wodonga, Rockhampton and Launceston were closed on 30 September this year. It also stated that operations at Newcastle, Wollongong and Geelong are under consideration for closure. I would like some information on where those deliberations currently stand and what offices can expect to remain open in regional areas. People in regional areas will be put to greater cost by these closures. Will the Government be taking any action on the Minister's suggestions to his ethnic communities that he will consider a study of extending the 008 telephone service to his Department, so that people in those areas can ring through, and will he provide an advertising campaign to advertise the service? Will the Government be taking any steps to ensure that sensitivity to local conditions is not lost within the bureaucracy which is sometimes fairly remote? I would also like to follow up a question that was asked by Senator Peter Baume regarding statistics on international travellers. During the last financial year over a quarter of a million more travellers arrived in Australia than in the previous year. The number of travellers departing Australia was about 160,000 more than the number for the previous year. There are a variety of reasons why more travellers might have stayed in Australia but it is not at all clear how the excess of arrivals over departures would increase from 40,000 in 1984-85 to nearly 140,000 in 1985-86. I would be very pleased if the Minister or members of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs could give some indication as to how that has happened. Just recently in Western Australia there was a long-running case of Majid Fardsavar, who was under threat of deportation to Iran even though he was linked with a general in the former Shah's army and was thought by some people to be in great personal danger as a result. An extraordinary run of departmental stonewalling and imperviousness came to an end when Mr Justice Toohey granted interlocutory relief against the Minister's deportation order. Appeals had come in from Amnesty International about the risks to this man if he were to go back to Iran but these apparently had no effect on the Minister or his advisers. A large prison bill had to be run up even though Fardsavar did nothing untoward when he was out for two weeks on bail during this ordeal. It seems, as a result of this court action, that future deportation arrangements will have to satisfy a reasonableness criterion. In this case Fardsavar has been accepted by the Spanish Government and is already in Spain. It seems to be a reflection on our compassion and humanity that the Minister resisted such a sensible compromise for so long and that well over $40,000 of public money has been spent on proposing and defending the really indefensible case of sending him back to Iran. I would very much like the Minister and the Department to give some indication of how typical or atypical is the Fardsavar case. Because of my involvement in this case I am now receiving a number of letters from people who seem to be in similar situations, such as Dr Hempel and Mr Etheredge who are in custody at the C. W. Campbell Remand Centre in Perth awaiting a decision of Mr Justice Burchett, a justice of the Federal Court of Australia, on whether they should be extradited. The major problem is that we are spending vast amounts of money on these cases. What is the justification for keeping these people in prison when apparently there is no evidence of bad character, previous criminal record or desire to escape? It seems to me a real problem. Perhaps some of these moneys could be better spent in other services, such as keeping open regional offices. Lastly, on 24 September I asked a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs relating to the dismemberment of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. In that capacity, Senator Button undertook to refer factual matters to the Minister for an answer. No such answer has been forthcoming. It is now three months since the announcement that the Office of Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs was to be established within the Department. I would like to know from the Minister how many officers will be involved? What will be the annual running cost of this operation? Can we also get some indication of the extra funding to be devoted to independent research in an area in which the Jupp Review of Migrant Multicultural Programs and Services believed that the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs still had a very important role to play? Or is the Government hoping to lessen the scrutiny and continue its fierce attack on multiculturalism through this means? Within the Department and by the Government there has been an attack on multiculturalism. This is highly disturbing in a country in which 45 per cent of the community is of non-Anglo-Celtic background. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.25) —I suppose that we continually have to put up with attacks such as we have just heard from the honourable senator as we consider the Estimates in Committee. I happen to be proud of our multicultural society. If Senator Vigor really believes that changing the Institute of Multicultural Affairs in the way the Government has done will make any difference to that, he is having himself on, quite frankly. I was very pleased to hear tonight on PM the editor of the biggest Italian newspaper in this country point out that 96 per cent of Italians never watch the Special Broadcasting Service programs and could not care less about a merger. If the honourable senator talks to communities, as I have, on the weekend-the Lebanese community and the Greek community in Melbourne-he will find the same response. He can chase his populist issues up hill and down dale but he will not get any response from me during debate on the appropriations when we are supposed to be looking at matters of detail. If the honourable senator wants to use this debate for the sort of rhetoric populist nonsense that we hear from him all the time, he may do so but he should not expect a reply from me. I make a similar response about regional offices. This Government faced a budgetary situation in which we were urged by people throughout the community, particularly those opposite, to cut government expenditure. We did so in some places. The honourable senator has distinguished himself by opposing every cut of that type. He has made no suggestions about what alternatives could be made. He has just picked up every populist issue and run with it. He may do that as long as he can. He can always do that because he is in the absolute position of never having the opportunity to be in government. He will never have to carry out anything that he proposes and therefore he can act in that irresponsible way. Some of his colleagues, if they live long enough, might get close to that but he certainly will not from number three on the ticket in South Australia. Senator Peter Baume —He might be number two in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator GRIMES —He might. We will see how he goes then. Answers to the specific questions that the honourable senator asked the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs about staffing levels and the employment of people on temporary and contract arrangements were given to him. We work on a system of average staffing levels. At times during the year that level is penetrated and at other times it goes down to get the average level up. I am sure that at every Senate Estimates committee hearing at which Senator Vigor has asked questions someone has painstakingly sat down and explained the ASL system. If he had been on Estimates Committee B he would have heard Senator Sheil use a rather rude term for the ASL system. I suppose that I could attempt to explain it again in words of one syllable, but frankly I will instead arrange for officers of this Department, of the Treasury, of the Public Service Board or of anywhere else to explain carefully to Senator Vigor, who I know has a scientific background, just what averages mean and how at some times of the year if we go above the level and at other times of the year we go below it the average works out to be roughly between those figures. That is a very simple way of putting what happens. Senator Vigor —But there is an enormous dip in June. Senator GRIMES —For heaven's sake, we have an annual budgetary situation. The honourable senator might like to change that, as I would. If he picks another time of the year he will get dips and ups and downs in different departments. I cannot remember what else the honourable senator asked. He says that we must not close any regional offices. Senator Michael Baume does not like regional offices being closed in Wollongong. The only place where nobody has minded very much is in Launceston, from where I come. In Launceston, Senator Newman's office, Senator Watson's office and my office do the work we were doing before. We look after the immigration inquiries. We did not need that regional office and we will not have it there in the future. No one complains very much. Senator Michael Baume —But Wollongong has an enormous ethnic population. Senator GRIMES —Of course, but Senator Vigor opposes the closure of them anywhere. Wherever offices are closed he says that we must not do it. We are told: `Do not merge the Special Broadcasting Service and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Do not touch the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. Do not cut expenditure anywhere'. That is the easiest way to play politics in this country. It does not cut any ice with me, especially at this time of night. We are about to go home. I suggest we do that and start again tomorrow. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional orders, I put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —Order! The question is: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.31) —Speaking on the adjournment tonight I wish to take a few minutes to draw the attention of the Senate to a report which has been tabled in the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. It is the report of the Northern Territory Railway Executive Group on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway project. The Railway Executive Group was set up to examine the specific details of the feasibility of the railway line-to give an honest assessment of its cost, its earning capacity and the services which it could provide. The group was chaired by its Director, Neil R. Conn. The table of contents of the report lists the freight task and revenue projections, the transport task in 1984-85, the base year transport task, the base year freight rates and rail share, the base year railway task and revenue, the railway task and revenue beyond 1990. Part II deals with the route, engineering and construction costs. It lists the route, survey, investigations and design, engineering and construction cost estimates. Part III deals with services, equipment and operating costs. It lists standards and services, equipment requirements and operating and maintenance costs. Part IV includes funding requirements and options. In this report are included tables and information which make a very complete report. I seek leave to table the report. Leave granted. Senator KILGARIFF —I ask that the further statement to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly of 13 November 1986 by the Hon. Steve Hatton, the Northern Territory Chief Minister, be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- THE ALICE SPRINGS TO DARWIN RAILWAY Further Statement to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly 13 November BY THE HON. STEVE HATTON Chief Minister STATEMENT BY THE CHIEF MINISTER ON TABLING REPORT OF RAILWAY EXECUTIVE GROUP IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY THE ALICE SPRINGS TO DARWIN RAILWAY Mr Speaker, I table a report by the Railway Executive Group on the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway. Mr Speaker, last June I foreshadowed to Honourable Members that I would provide during the present Sittings a further progress report on the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway project. The Railway Executive Group has now presented its report to Cabinet. It is, as I anticipated back in June, a careful and sober assessment of what the line will cost to build and equip, and what it may be expected to earn after meeting operating costs. The work of the group has been aimed, quite deliberately, at two distinct but related targets. The first has been the projection of a base-year transport task and earning capacity for the Railway, devoid of `blue sky' future developments and fully aware of the Railway's need to be competitive with other modes of transport in the Territory. The second has been the determination of a set of least-cost, but nonetheless safe and acceptable, construction and operating standards for the line. The Railway Executive Group has done its job well-almost too well, in the sense that it has set itself deliberately to ignore the Territory's demonstrated capacity since self-government to grow faster and do a number of things, not only better than expected, but often better than it's been done elsewhere in Australia. Honourable Members will probably share with me the belief, after they have read the report, that the Railway will be carrying bigger tonnages and earning more than projected soon after its completion. It would take, for example, just one new, railway-using Territory project to come on stream in the 1990s from amongst the list of possibilities to radically transform the commercial results. Development of the Port of Darwin as one end of a land-bridge across Australia would have a similar result. Such possibilities have been put firmly to one side in preparing the report I will table today. This report establishes a basic bottom line for the project. It shows that the Territory has a basic railway task that can be done in a realistic and economical way. It makes a useful start on how the project's funding might be structured. For those who share our confidence in the future of the Territory, however, it will do no more than provide reassurance that the `downside' risks of participation in this great developmental project are low. For them, the rewards of participation from the outset will be greater than the report allows itself to anticipate. Against that background, I present now to Honourable Members in some detail the major findings and recommendations of the Railway Executive Group. FREIGHT TASK AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS The report starts from the following facts regarding freight already moving within the Northern Territory and open to capture by the completed railway: the central corridor (between Alice Springs and Darwin) is the dominant land freight route; the majority of freight moving in that corridor already makes use of the existing railway south of Alice Springs; northbound freight exceeds southbound freight by a factor of almost two-to-one; and over two-thirds of the freight concerned is non-bulk and directly related to the needs of the Northern Territory population (described in the report as `General Freight' requirements). The report also notes, after surveying existing rates for carrying goods by road and/or rail, that rail freight rates are generally lower than competing road rates. The report consequently assumes for its base-year projections that: (1) rail will generally be preferred to road for carriage of bulk cargoes over long distances; (2) tariffs on the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway will be 20-25 per cent lower than present road rates for comparable freight tasks; (3) intense competition is to be expected from road operators for backhaul (mainly southbound) cargoes, requiring even lower rail rates in that direction; (4) rate differentials will be much less in evidence where dedicated rolling stock is used (for example, in carrying petroleum products); and (5) the base-year Railway share of freight carried north of Alice Springs will be no less than the proportion already carried by rail as far as Alice Springs. Not only would transhipment to road at that point make no commercial sense with the Railway link to Darwin completed, but experience with the Tarcoola to Alice Springs standard gauge link since its opening in 1980 suggests that the proportion will in fact increase. The report goes on to assume, in making its projections for future growth in traffic on the Railway, that: (6) there will be no increase in General Freight requirements per head of population (estimated to average, northbound, about 3.5 tonnes per year), so that the rate of growth in this major component of the transport task will be limited to the rate of population growth; (7) only projects which are presently operational or virtually certain to proceed over the next few years will generate freight for the line, and the total tonnage carried will increase at only 3% per year from the base-year level: (8) no additional traffic will be generated by the presence of a rail line where none existed before-that is to say, the developmental consequences of the line itself have been ignored in the rail traffic projections; and (9) there will be no shift of traffic away from the eastern and western road corridors into the central corridor, despite the greater appeal the central corridor should have upon completion of the line. Together these assumptions imply that the Railway will carry 70% of total freight tonnage an average distance of 1,000 kilometres and earn an average of a little under 4 cents per net tonne kilometre for doing so. It follows that Railway gross revenue in 1991 will total $31.5 million, measured in today's dollars. Within that total: two-thirds will be earned from freight moving the entire distance between Alice Springs and Darwin; 80% will come from northbound traffic; and well over 80% will be earned from the carriage of general freight (mainly northbound) and petroleum (mainly southbound from Darwin). As a final comment on the projected freight task, five locations will account for most of the operations of the line, namely Darwin, Mataranka (principally for its limestone deposits), Katherine (boosted by the Tindal Air Base development), Tennant Creek (particularly as a staging point for traffic from Queensland and, to a lesser extent, New South Wales), and Alice Springs. Other points requiring service, according to the report's projections, will be Batchelor, Adelaide River, Pine Creek, Daly Waters, Renner Springs and Ti-Tree. I stress to Honourable Members again that the freight projections are based upon particularly cautious assumptions. We can be confident that, in the report's own words, they are at the lower bound of any reasonable range of expectations. The projections ignore the enormous developmental potential of the line, and the very real prospect of new developments and hence rail traffic appearing once the line is in place. It would be difficult to devise a more severe test, on the revenue side, for the project. ROUTE, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS I turn now to the second part of the Railway Executive Group's report, which assesses the alignment alternatives, a range of design standards and the approach to construction of the line, all against the over-riding objective of containing capital costs to the lowest level consistent with safe and acceptable standards of operation. In my June statement I indicated that a number of cost-saving options were under careful review by the group and its consultants. Some of those options, such as the use of timber sleepers and the building of timber trestle bridges, have not survived the further tests applied to them, at some loss I would guess to the Territory's cartoonists. Others, such as the re-use of part of the old North Australia Railway (NAR) route and bridges, have survived and remaining significant cost-saving features of the group's proposals. It is estimated that $23 million (in today's dollars) can be saved by re-using the NAR route over the 200 kilometres between Katherine and Adelaide River, the larger part arising from net savings on bridge and culvert costs. Cameron McNamara and Partners, a major firm of consulting engineers, have confirmed that it is both possible and economical to re-use, after strengthening, the existing NAR bridges. The majority of the bridges to be strengthened comprise wrought-iron superstructure beams which will require the addition by welding of supplementary steel palting. Laboratory testing commissioned from the University of Queensland has confirmed the feasibility of welding the wrought-iron and that satisfactory fatigue resistance can be achieved. Mr Speaker, I mention this incidental technical aspect of the report simply as an example of the care the Railway Executive Group has taken at each step to ensure that its findings are both financially sensible and technically feasible. With the exceptions of the section between Katherine and Adelaide River and some tighter curves and inceased gradients over the next 65 kilometeres north to Noonamah, the remainder of the preferred route sticks closely to that contemplated by the Australian National before it was obliged to cease planning for the line. Planning had proceeded to the point were some 70% of the alignment is already pegged with the remaining 30% located precisely on the map. The bulk of necessary survey work has been finished, including a relatively short but crucial section commissioned at our expense by the Railway Executive Group. So far as the old NAR alignment is concerned, no survey is available but the old design drawings are, so that only limited calibration surveys will be required to give indicative quantities. Potential ballast and groundwater supplies for earthworks construction purposes have been assessed for the entire route. Certain gaps have been identified and provision has been made, in estimating construction costs, for filling them. No right-of-way or environmental impact problems are anticipated over the preferred route. The Land Councils have confirmed their backing for the project and the Sacred Sites Authority has confirmed that there are no issues of significance that affect the proposed alignment. Overall, then, the Railway route has been checked out thoroughly and passed every test the Railway Executive Group has applied to it. Nor does it appear that there will be any significant engineering problems associated with the line's construction. A track formation width of 6.7 metres has been assessed as being adequate for initial construction, with provision for widening (on an as-required basis) built into future maintenance cost estimates. The effect of this narrower formation width, suggested originally by Canadian Pacific, is to reduce the initial volume of bulk earthworks and selected fill requirements by some 15 to 20%. It has the further effect of reducing the typical culvert length and hence of reducing construction costs in this area as well. A review by the Railway Executive Group of alternative ballast depths, subgrade strengths, sleeper spacing and sleeper types established a preferred track structure and that, on the basis of present ballast and tracklaying estimates and current supply prices, steel sleepers would be the most economical. Whilst competitive tendering could, in the event, result in the chosen course becoming concrete sleepers, the construction cost estimates are based on the steel sleeper alternative. As noted earlier, the review of timber sleepers revealed price, durability and handling problems sufficient to discount that option. The estimated cost of rails is based upon a B.H.P. quotation for new 50 kilogram rail, expected to be used for all mainline track. B.H.P. has confirmed at the same time that it could supply rail at the rate required for the preferred construction program. All sidings and loops have been assumed to utilise lighter rail acquired from Australian National after recovery from the former NAR line, The possible use of short second-hand rails from North America has also been investigated, but higher estimated tracklaying costs, the depreciation of the Australian dollar and a very competitive price indicated by B.H.P. have combined to remove the cost advantage perceived earlier. The option should, notwithstanding, be kept under review in case any or all of these more favourable conditions should change. The preferred construction program envisages a 4-year design and construction period commencing in 1987, with tracklaying fronts starting at both Alice Springs and Darwin. A detailed review by the international tracklaying experts, Barclay Bros. Limited, has confirmed that a tracklaying rate of 8 kilometres per week on each of these fronts would be sustainable, implying a total tracklaying time of well under 30 months. The report has assumed, for conservative estimating purposes, that the full 30 months will be taken. The Group and its consultants are confident that the project can be completed within four years providing it is undertaken on a project management basis which allows design, supply and construction to proceed simultaneously. As I stated back in June, the work done by the Railway Executive Group and its expert consultants will allow a flying start to be made, since so much of the preparatory work has already been done. The results of this work will be available, of course, to all who would seriously contemplate participating in the project once I table the group's report today. In all, it is estimated that the line will cost $610 million, measured in today's dollars. That sum contains over $30 million in contingency allowances provided to meet the unforeseen expenditures that will crop up in the course of design and construction. The estimate also includes an appropriate provision for the site allowances that will be an inescapable part of labour costs for a project of this nature in the regions it will traverse. A notable cost saving has been identified in the use of available second-hand locomotives and rollingstock for construction purposes. To keep the total sum in perspective, Honourable Members will recall that Canadian Pacific in their September 1985 report to the Northern Territory Government spoke of a ``lowest initial cost'' Railway costing in the region of $500 million over 3 years and a ``base case'' of roundly $550 million spent over 4 years. The infamous Hill Inquiry used a figure closer to $600 million. It is important to note that all these estimates were based upon wage rates and materials prices prevailing in 1983. After allowing for inflation over the intervening 3 years, it is apparent that the Railway Executive Group has defined a project which is at least as economical as the ``lowest initial cost'' version sketched by Canadian Pacific, without the vulnerability of that version's condensed construction program to unexpected supply and other problems, and well inside the Canadian Pacific ``base case'' which in today's dollars would be approaching $700 million. The Hill version would long since have passed that mark. I note, simply for further perspective on national projects, that the new Parliament House in Canberra is set to exceed $1000 million in total cost. SERVICES, EQUIPMENT AND OPERATING COSTS I turn briefly now to the report's findings on likely services, equipment requirements and what the Railway will cost to run when it goes into operation. The operating plan assumed by the Railway Executive Group for projection purposes provides for: (1) the Railway to handle wagon-load freight business to and from a small number of centres (anything less than wagon-load will first need to be consolidated by customers, including freight wholesalers); (2) no scheduled passenger services; (3) the Railway to connect and co-operate closely with the Australian National system at Alice Springs and, through AN, with the rest of the Australian standard gauge network; (4) minimum manning practices, with two-man crews on the trains and Railway staff employed only at Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin; and (5) initial rollingstock requirements, except for locomotives, to be met mainly from equipment used during construction and from surplus equipment available elsewhere. After taking account of the projected volume and composition of the Railway freight task described earlier, and making certain technical assumptions regarding train sizes and operating characteristics, the report derives an initial Railway service comprising 5 double-locomotive trains per week between Alice Springs and Darwin and a further 3 single-locomotive trains per week between Mataranka and Darwin. Future freight expansion is projected to be met by a combination of more frequent and bigger trains requiring up to three locomotives each. Initial equipment purchases for the line, comprising new locomotives, rollingstock, freight handling, track maintenance and other equipment are projected to cost $24 million (in 1986 dollars), after allowing for a substantial amount of rollingstock and track maintenance equipment transferred from construction at no additional cost to the project. Total operating and maintenance costs for the line have been estimated at $23.6 million (in 1986 dollars) in the first year of operation. Allowance is made within that figure for the marginally higher operating costs arising from the adoption of the NAR alignment north of Katherine, as well as provision for the cost of widening the track formation where operational experience shows this to be required. The estimates have been checked with AN, particularly against their experience with the Tarcoola to Alice Springs line. NET OPERATING SURPLUS Honourable Members will have noted that projected operating and maintenance costs at $23.6 million fall well inside the projected revenue of $31.5 million in the first year of operation. I have anticipated publicly that the Railway would generate an operating surplus from the outset-we now have an estimate of the size of that initial operating surplus, namely $8 million in today's dollars. That is an encouraging start. I believe there is no real rail system in Australia, with the exception of the dedicated iron ore lines in Western Australia and the coal lines in Queensland, which can claim to make an operating surplus. It certainly cannot be claimed by the author of the Hill Report who, during his term as Chief Executive of the NSW Rail Authority, was widely applauded for containing his system's operating Loss to only one million dollars per day. Another encouraging result is that the operating surplus on the Alice Springs to Darwin line is projected to grow in real terms at over 6% per year, or more than double the assumed rate of growth in tonnage carried, as overhead expenses are spread more widely and economies of scale in operations come into effect. At that rate of increase, the operating surplus (in 1986 dollars) doubles within the first twelve years of operation and reached almost $25 million (in 1986 dollars) after twenty years of operation. The discouraging result, at first sight, is the finding that these accumulating operating surpluses do not appear to pay, within that 20 year period, for the cost of building and equipping the line. Measured in constant 1986-dollar terms there is no doubt about it-during the first 20 years of operation, accumulated operating surpluses are projected to contribute only $303 million towards the $610 million construction costs, the $24 million spent initially to equip the line and the further $55 million required in subsequent years to expand and replace equipment as use of the line grows. I say do not appear to pay since, when allowance is made for the inflation that inevitably will occur and costs and outlays are inflated to future dollars rather than 1986 dollars, the project becomes substantially cash-positive. That is to say, over 20 years it generates more than enough cash after operating expenses have been met to recoup all construction and equipment costs and still have something left over. This happens essentially because future revenues are boosted by inflation but construction costs are not having been sunk into the project at the outset. Mr Speaker, this is not done with mirrors or require any great financial sophistication to appreciate. It simply reflects what home buyers and project sponsors have always known in times of inflation-that building something with today's dollars and paying for it with tomorrow's dollars has generally been a good deal providing the cost of financing is kept to reasonable levels. That final proviso is, of course, the key to the whole matter. If the ``something left over'' after meeting operating costs is not enough to service the debt and equity funds raised to finance the capital cost of the project, then the project will not proceed. PROJECT FUNDING REQUIREMENTS In the case of our project, the Railway Executive Group puts it quite brutally: The Railway will be totally unattractive as a strictly commercial venture over the period covering construction and the first twelve years of operation, since the net cashflow over that time will be negative. This should come as no surprise to anyone. This is a long-term, infrastructure development project and it would be quite unreasonable to expect it to pay for itself within only twelve years (a limited time horizon set more by banks than by the project). The real surprise should be that it takes only another 6 years to reach that position, on the generally cautious projections made in the report. That is not, in itself enough. The Project must also have the capacity to service, at acceptable rates of interest or dividend payment, the funds raised to meet the projected cashflow deficiency over the early years. The Railway Executive Group is, again, quite blunt about what its cashflow projections indicate: The Railway will turn substantially cash-positive, but the internal rate of return (a nominal 2% per annum over 24 years) will be unattractive to potential equity investors. Mr Speaker, it is important to note the phrase ``potential equity investors'' in that statement. What the report is saying is that we cannot reasonably expect a profit-seeking entrepreneur, faced with prospective earnings limited to the revenue projections of this report, to invest enough to satisfy the project's cash needs from the commencement of construction, since the return on his investment over a quite long period of years would be inadequate. PROJECT FUNDING STRUCTURES But it is also important not to lose sight of the fact that there is a servicing capacity there, and the test for the project's sponsors and financiers will be to stretch the use of that available cash to its limit. One way to do that is to rearrange the after-tax cash flows of the project in a way which sharply lowers the effective cost of funds, as is done for example in a leveraged lease. Another is to attract into the project equity investors prepared to accept very low or very late dividends, as could happen if such investors were to perceive substantial indirect advantages or returns from equity participation. It is of course possible that, even fully-stretched in such ways, the project's net cash flow will prove inadequate for a time and will need supplementing. This is the approach taken by the Railway Executive Group's financial consultant, Wardley Australian Limited, in its assessment of alternative funding structures, when it assumes that the Government will contribute a substantial amount up-front, make annual ``top-up'' contributions and guarantee that lenders will be taken out of the transaction at the scheduled time. A deal of testing of the alternatives remains to be done before my Government will consider entering into commitments of the magnitude suggested by that analysis. Honourable Members will note, however, the concluding remark in the report of the Railway Executive Group that the equity partnership funding structure can be refined to further reduce the assumed Government contributions. That is a promising start on the financial engineering but much more needs to be recognised about this project before that task goes too much further. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BENEFITS First, this is a project which will generate great national and public benefits. As I and my predecessors have pointed out many times before, that was recognised in the Federal Government's legislated responsibility to build the line which dates back to 1911. Legal obligations aside, Canadian Pacific has established a convincing economic case for the line being built as a national project. Substantial resource savings and Railway earnings will accrue outside the Northern Territory once goods can be put directly onto trains at their point of origin in Adelaide, Sydney or Melbourne for the through trip to Darwin (or even, perhaps, to ports beyond). Substantial savings will occur also as less resources are used in road maintenance, not only in the Northern Territory but also in the States through which trucks pass on their way. I remind Honourable Members again of the calculation, made by Canadian Pacific, that the Railway would save the nation more than 2,000 million litres of fuel over 50 years. At today's prices that would even pay for the Parliament House in Canberra, much less our Railway! It follows that there is sound justification, on both economic and equity grounds, for the long-term investment of public funds in the line, not just by the Territory but by the Federal Government and by those States which stand to benefit in a very real way. Before leaving the point, Mr Speaker, I wish to deplore the style of response (last seen expressed in the Dibb Report on Australia's defence) which accepts the sort of advantages I have described but takes the stand that no contribution need be made towards the costs of achieving them because someone else will pay for the Railway anyway. Are we supposed to blindly accept that every dollar in the present defence budget achieves a better return, in terms of defence preparedness, than a dollar spent on completing Australia's standard gauge rail network, particularly when so much of our defence orientation is northwards? I think not, and have not the slightest doubt that the services of the Railway would be requisitioned the moment our defenders thought they were needed. While I am sure Territorians are prepared to play their part in enabling that to happen, it would be grossly inequitable if we were to shoulder the entire cost. The second concluding point that I wish to make is that the Railway will generate substantial benefits to the private sector, over and above the public and external benefits I have described. These will accrue to the builders who make profits from the construction of the line, to the steelmakers who supply the rail and probably the sleepers as well, to the equipment suppliers who supply the locomotives and rollingstock and to the financiers who put the funding package together. They will accrue to the transport operators who will have at their disposal, at long last, a truly national standard gauge network. The list of private beneficiaries does not stop there. The report indicates a number of areas where private sector involvement could be both efficient and profitable-in, for example, the overhaul of locomotives and rollingstock by private contractors, even the contracting-out of labour and management needs at the majority of stations that do not require full-time staffing. The possible role for private enterprise in this Railway is limited only by the imagination and entrepreneurial spirit of the potential participants. My Government will put no barriers in their way if they have the substance and staying-power required-indeed, we will give them every assistance within our power. As I have indicated before, that could extend if required to a shareholding by the Northern Territory Government in the private company or companies set up to own and operate the Railway. I would hope, following discussions that I have recently reopened, that in due course we will see equally helpful commitments on the part of the Federal and South Australian Governments. Let me state my Government's position quite clearly. Whilst not excluding the possibility of Northern Territory Government participation, our first and principal objective is to have the line built, owned and operated wholly by private enterprise. Mr Speaker, my third and final point in conclusion is this. While my Government has accepted the report of the Railway Executive Group in its entirety, and has no qualms whatsoever about the degree of professionalism and amount of commonsense that have been put into preparing it, it should not be assumed that we (or the Group) consider any technical or financial options to be closed off at this stage. If someone wants to put to us that the better solution is a gas-fired train, or an electrified system, or a different route, or indeed any other variation which can be shown to make sense and to be financially sound, then we are perfectly prepared to sponsor that better solution. Discussions with potential participants, and the testing of alternatives, has never ceased, and will now accelerate. About the only option that we close off is that of not having the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway at all, since the report I now table has confirmed to my Government that there is, as I stated at the outset today, a basic Railway task that can be done in a realistic and economical way. It is now in a very real sense up to the private sector, and particularly those who know more than we do about transportation, construction, finance and the running of Railways, to set about building on the foundation we have established and to join us in taking the next step towards finishing the job. I commend the report to Honourable Members. Senator KILGARIFF —I thank the Senate. As can be seen from the statement of the Northern Territory Chief Minister on the tabling of the report, the Executive Group has done its job very well. Time does not permit me to go through all aspects of the report in detail but I would like to make a few points which I think are important for all of us to note. This is a project of national significance which is being proposed, not just something for Territorians. It has a tremendous history. I shall not go over that because it has been brought up in the Senate many times, particularly in the last two years. Firstly, I should endorse the comments of the Chief Minister. This is a sober and careful assessment of what the line will cost to build and equip and what it may be expected to earn after meeting operating costs. The report deliberately ignores the Territory's demonstrated capacity since self-government to grow faster and to do many things better than they can be done in other parts of Australia. As a bottom line, the report establishes that the Territory has a basic railway task that can be done in a realistic and economic way. It suggests how the funding of the project might be constructed. The report is based on present road and rail freight movements and assumes a rate of growth in freight requirements commensurate only with population growth. It takes into account only projects which are presently operational and certain to proceed and it assumes no additional traffic will be generated by the presence of a rail line where none has existed before. Even on the basis of these very conservative assumptions, the railway is estimated to gross revenue in its first year of operation of $31.5m measured in today's dollars. The operating costs for the same period are assessed at $23.6m. So the operating surplus would be $8m in today's values. The line contemplated by the Northern Territory Government will operate at a profit. In that respect it will be unique in Australia. The Northern Territory Government is committed to seeing the line built but on condition that it is a profit making enterprise and not a burden on the resources of the Northern Territory and its people-and Australia for that matter. I stress that unless the line is a profit making enterprise it will not be constructed. The Northern Territory Government wants it to be a benefit to the Northern Territory and no one can doubt that it will be. Not only will it be a benefit to the Northern Territory; it will be a magnificent asset for Australia. Benefits will accrue to builders involved in construction, steel makers supplying the rail and sleepers, equipment suppliers who supply engines and rolling stock, and the financiers who put the funding package together. Transport operators will also benefit, along with many others. Indeed, as I have said, the project will be of national benefit. While the Northern Territory is proceeding to approach private investors as the next step in seeing the project come to fruition, it is quite justified in hoping for support and commitments on the part of the Federal and South Australian governments in particular. The Chief Minister has not excluded the possibility of Northern Territory Government participation in the scheme but has reiterated that the Northern Territory Government's principal objective is to see the line built, owned and operated wholly by private enterprise. As I said, there is much more information in the report and the statement of the Chief Minister. I have tabled the report and incorporated the statement of the Chief Minister in order that the information might be more readily and widely available, to members of the Federal Parliament. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.37) —I shall detain the Senate for only a few moments this evening. I want to make some remarks on a report which was presented to the Parliament today but on which no formal motion that the Senate take note of the paper was moved. I refer to the report of the Commonwealth Department of Health entitled `Australia's response to AIDS'. It is not often that I get the opportunity in what I hope is an entirely non-partisan sense to say in this chamber that there are certain activities which have been undertaken by the Commonwealth Government, and by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in particular, which I believe are worthy of being noted throughout the Parliament as outstanding examples of the correct way in which a government ought to respond to a major problem developing in the Australian community and a major public health problem which is currently confronting not only Australia but to all intents and purposes also all like countries throughout the Western world and Africa and a number of underdeveloped countries. The response of the Australian Government to the acquired immune deficiency syndrome crisis in which Dr Blewett and the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, and a number of others have been involved is I think an example of outstanding success by an Australian administration and one which on behalf of a large number of members, if not all members, of the Opposition I wish to be associated with. The decision of the Minister for Health, on the initiative originally proposed by Mr Peacock when he was the Leader of the Opposition, to establish the parliamentary liaison committee on AIDS I think has indicated the correct way in which a parliament ought to respond to problems of this nature. That committee has been meeting under the chairmanship of the Minister for Health for a number of months. Reports have been presented to it about what the Government is doing on the AIDS situation and the programs which the Government is developing to combat the AIDS crisis. It has had the opportunity to hear from distinguished members of the medical profession-both Australians and overseas visitors. It has had the opportunity to discuss the personal problems involved in the AIDS crisis with a number of people who are actually AIDS sufferers and people who have been involved in the more political side of dealing with the AIDS crisis. We now have before us a report called `Australia's response to AIDS' prepared by Margaret Duckett-I certainly indicate my congratulations to her on the preparation of this report-which deals with the steps that have been undertaken by the Commonwealth Government and by each of the State and Territory governments in responding to the AIDS crisis. As I say, I do not wish to detain the Senate at any length this evening, but it is important to indicate that the report reveals that the first case in Australia of category A AIDS was diagnosed in November 1982. By 17 September 1986 a total of 296 cases had occurred, of whom 140 had died. Senator Grimes said in answer to a question today that, on the best of all evidence available, there is no reason to be particularly optimistic about the short term likelihood of a cure being found for this disease. Whether experiments with the new drug AZT, isotrinosine or any of the other drugs which are currently in vogue will turn out to be beneficial in the long run remains to be seen. One can only hope, but at this stage it is a matter of hope. Australia currently has an incidence of infection of 17 per million, which approximately parallels the situation in the United States of America where the epidemic commenced approximately two years earlier. By 1991 it is likely that in Australia we will have more than 5,000 persons suffering from AIDS. I think the response of the Government has been intelligent and sympathetic. The establishment of the National AIDS Task Force under David Penington and the National Advisory Committee on AIDS under Ita Buttrose I think has contributed substantially not only to public information, which is very important, but also to the capacity of the community to respond because it has the information before it-information which comes to the community from what it perceives to be reliable sources. I think it is very interesting to note the differing responses in each of the States. This report has indicated, for instance, that in New South Wales there was a considerable problem with the attempt to amend the Public Health Act to require doctors to report cases in a particular fashion. All that happened as a result of that overreaction by the New South Wales Government was that the number of people presenting for testing for AIDS antibody positive status declined dramatically. That was a tragedy. It is only now that in New South Wales there is some attempt to overcome and rectify that problem. It is disappointing to see in the report that in Victoria the Minister responsible for the Office of Corrections has decided against making condoms available to prisoners and that he has not indicated a willingness to deal with the question of the supply of sterile needles or syringes to prisoners. Here is a situation in which within the prison population we have unique and particular problems which ought to be addressed in a far more sympathetic and intelligent fashion than appears to be the case. We have situations in States such as Western Australia and Tasmania where there is still a problem arising as far as AIDS victims are concerned that homosexual acts continue to remain criminal offences. It is almost unbelievable that in 1986 that should continue to be the situation. It is perhaps most unfortunate to look at the situation in Queensland. I am not one who in the past has been prepared to indulge in any degree of particular bashing of State governments but I think the situation in Queensland is one where the lack of an intelligent response on the part of the Queensland Government has been a national disgrace. It is quite clear that the lack of sympathetic attention to this matter in Queensland and the failure of the Queensland Government to deal with this matter in the same intelligent and sympathetic way as the other State governments, regardless of their views about homosexual behaviour or the criminal status of homosexuality, is something that Australia as a nation must regard as one of the few clear failures of the way in which the AIDS crisis has been responded to. Senator Grimes today, in answering a question about the supply of clean syringes, made the point that overseas evidence is quite overwhelming that one of the important responses to the AIDS crisis, particularly as it is now more and more likely that AIDS will be passed on by the use of dirty needles by intravenous drug users, should be to look sympathetically at the supply of clean needles in appropriate situations. Professor David Penington, perhaps one of the most distinguished medical practitioners in this country, has urged that course of action. In a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 November Dr Wodak of the Alcohol and Drug Service, Dr Julian Gold of the Albion Street AIDS Clinic and Dr David Cooper, a staff specialist in immunology at St Vincents Hospital in Sydney, all put their names to a letter advocating that we look at that and that we consider intelligently the clear evidence gained from the Netherlands, where such a system has been in place for a number of years. As I said, I do not want to delay the Senate at the end of a very long day of significant debate, but when the Department of Health puts down an informative and useful report which deals with an issue which affects the life and death of a large number of our fellow citizens, I believe it is to be congratulated. The presentation of this report gives us an opportunity to say that Australia has responded in an intelligent and positive fashion to this problem. To the best of my knowledge there has been no partisan politics of any description involved and both sides of the chamber and both sides of the political debate have recognised that this is a public health problem, that it is not a moral issue, a dilemma about punishment or anything like that, but a question of how we are prepared in a civilised society to respond to a public health issue. I believe that the Minister is to be congratulated for the role he has played in the preparation of this report. I know there is one outstanding question of the long term issue of the provision of hospice and other care. I was recently in the United Kingdom and the British Government has just established a committee under the chairmanship of the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Whitelaw, to try to co-ordinate the Government's response to the AIDS crisis in that country. While I was there his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury gave an address to a meeting of health and hospital workers in which he made it quite clear that the provision of adequate hospice care was going to be the long term great issue for the public health system in the United Kingdom to cope with. I believe that is going to be the case in Australia. I believe that the medical research is being handled as best it can. The drug research and trials are being handled as best they can. The actual management in a hospital situation of patients, I think is equal to any in the world, but there is clearly going to be a real problem about the provision of adequate hospice care for those people who are going to be dying of AIDS. At this stage the majority of category A AIDS sufferers are condemned to that fate. The way in which we provide the resources and funds, and the co-ordination of Federal, State and local health authority activities to provide hospice care and to provide a situation in which, in the final stages of this very terrible disease, people can be dealt with in dignified circumstances with a maximum degree of humanity, will be a trial of both the Government's financial resolve and its political resolve. In terms of its political resolve I hope we can ensure that the co-operation which has occurred across the chamber in the way in which this matter has been dealt with as a public health issue can be maintained and advanced. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(10.50) —I add my voice to the issues raised by Senator Puplick and congratulate the Government on this report on one of the major health issues facing this country at this stage. It is obvious that a great deal of time, effort and money has gone into the campaign and, from the figures presented here, I confirm that about $24m has been spent by the Federal Government to fight the acquired immune deficiency syndrome since 1984. But there is one particular area that concerns me in terms of the ultimate effectiveness of this campaign. I guess it relates as much as anything else to the type of co-operation that has been gained from the State governments and the coyness which has been shown by a number of authorities, particularly at a State level, about this issue. I refer in particular to the corrective services divisions, whatever they are called in the various States-the departments of corrective services, penal institutions and all of those areas that relate to prisons. We know that prisons generally hold a higher percentage than the general population of people who are in the high risk area as far as AIDS is concerned. I refer to practising homosexuals and those people who are intravenous drug users. In fighting these two problems, the State governments have shown a remarkable coyness through their appropriate institutions in coming to grips with what practically can be done. If one surveys this report entitled `Australia's Response to AIDS', one finds that only three States have at this stage even contemplated providing condoms to prisoners through their respective corrective services divisions or departments. In fact, if one looks at the Northern Territory, New South Wales and South Australian surveys, one will find, for example, that ultimately the condoms have not been delivered in the most appropriate way, or have not been delivered at all despite good intentions. I think that the Northern Territory describes distribution problems as being the main reason why condoms have not been issued. New South Wales has brought 20,000. One is not quite sure whether they have actually gone into the prison system. Again, there has just been a statement of intent on the part of the South Australian Government. The coyness is not restricted to the way in which we treat penal institutions. It also appears in some of the respective legislation in the various States regarding the ease with which young people, in particular, can gain access to condoms. It is certainly made much more difficult by restrictive legislation on licensing and sales through vending machines. It seems to me if the Federal Government is to spend about $24m on this campaign, it ought not stop short of one of the very practical ways of at least preventing the spread of AIDS in the community, particularly through the heterosexual community, but also within the homosexual community. It is about time that we faced that issue, not just as a federal parliament but at the State government level, and made it possible for young people to respond to the sorts of public campaigns that governments are now running about so-called safe sex. It is about time that the coyness that this community has had, not only in regard to contraception but also in regard to the use of condoms and the protection of people against the spread of venereal disease, was ended. The only way it can be ended is by the politicians in various State parliaments and in the Federal Parliament being prepared to stand up and be counted on this issue. If we are talking about the protection, particularly of young people, in the future it is encumbent on us at least to lead that debate. It is one example of where parliaments must lead rather than reflect the lowest common denominator of social prejudice in the community. I state on the record tonight that we have a long way to go in changing some of the attitudes in a practical direction which may be of assistance in combatting this dreadful scourge which will have very significant effects on community health in Australia. I think that the reason why we have not moved quickly enough has been partly that many people in the community were quite happy, in one sense, to breathe a sigh of relief that their group, their particular area of sexual preference, precluded them from getting into the sorts of difficulties that homosexuals were getting themselves into. For a long time we tended to stand back as a community at large and simply say: `It is not a matter for heterosexuals in the community; it is not a matter for general community health'. Somehow or other there was a view that punishment was being meted out in some biblical sense to homosexuals. It was a sad and tragic attitude on the part of many State governments which were very quick to jump on the bandwagon and talk about the wrath of God. I recall one State Premier who, with a certain degree of glee, mentioned that AIDS was some form of pay-back from a divine entity for sexual practices which were not acceptable to the community at large. I, like other politicians, wish to be on record at this stage as pushing the viewpoint loudly and clearly throughout this nation that where practical things need to be done, for example in prisons, we ought to stand up and be counted on those issues, regardless of whether the rest of the community is at this stage prepared to follow. We ought to be leading on this issue, not staying 10 years behind, because as far as the AIDS epidemic is concerned, we do not have that much time in hand. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.55) —In regard to the matter of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, which was raised by Senator Puplick and Senator Aulich, I share all the views expressed by both honourable senators. The reason that we have managed to cope in this country, in the way that we have until now has been, I believe, the very sensible approach of parliamentarians in general-not just governments, but parliamentarians as a whole. The Parliamentary Liaison Group in this place is a very good example of what can happen. The very sane and sensible contributions to the debate that we have had in this place can only help. We have also been assisted by the fact that until now the capacity of the very good support groups for people with AIDS, particularly those in the gay community, has been such that the two committees and the health authorities have been able to cope in a fairly adequate way. But that situation will not continue, if one anticipates the difficulty of treatment that will continue, and that initially, for some years, treatment may only prolong life, rather than prevent death. Those support groups will not be able to cope, and it will be up to the parliamentarians of this country and the public health authorities to help cope with the problem. That being so, if I can make a personal comment, I firmly believe, for all sorts of reasons-reasons that have been demonstrated in the silly reaction of the New South Wales Government to the reporting of AIDS and the reluctance of other governments, in Western Australia, Tasmania and Queensland, to take adequate steps-that in future as this epidemic gets worse, Federal governments of whatever political persuasion will be in a better position to cope with the situation than any State government of any political persuasion. It will be a national problem. It will need national funding. I think it will need national initiatives to cope with it. I think we will have to face that. I certainly will be putting that, and have put that, to my colleagues in this place. Senator Puplick and Senator Aulich have pointed out that it is a national problem. The virus knows no State boundaries. We will not get over the problem by ignoring it. It certainly will not go away. If we do not take some of the most sensible actions that have been suggested by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), Senator Puplick and others, if we take the wrong actions, as happened in New South Wales, as Senator Puplick pointed out, the results can be potentially disastrous, although I hope that that situation has been overcome. I commend Senator Puplick and Senator Aulich for the remarks. I hope that in future the debate in this place on this matter will continue in the same way. In regard to Senator Kilgariff's contribution on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, I am pleased to hear that he is confident, Mr Hatton in the Northern Territory is confident, that it is a financial proposition, and that it will be profitable. Therefore, there is no need for any Commonwealth government contribution, because I can assure him that he will not get it while this Government is in power. I hope that all of those private financial institutions which will rush in and contribute money to that railway and make big profits out of it, do succeed, and succeed very well. I got a bit concerned towards the end of Senator Kilgariff's speech when he said that it may be necessary for the Northern Territory Government to contribute funds and that it would welcome some contribution in funds from the Federal Government. I hope any contribution that the Northern Territory Government makes to this project will have considerably more success than have its contributions in recent times to the hotel enterprises in Alice Springs and Darwin, which look like being a disaster for the taxpayers of the Northern Territory and therefore, I suppose, indirectly for the taxpayers of Australia. I hope that in future any entrepreneurial efforts of the Northern Territorial Government into railways or hotels will be successfully quarantined there and will not inflict penalties on the taxpayers of the rest of the country. I can assure Senator Kilgariff that my colleague Senator Walsh will be endeavouring to make sure that that happens. I think it is time that we all went home. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.01 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1235) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (i) Did the Special Minister of State, in his instructions of 18 July 1985, request Commissioner Grey to produce a draft Cabinet submission which was due to be completed early in 1986. (ii) Was such a submission prepared, and has it been received by the Minister. (iii) Has the Minister given consideration to this submission and has it been put before Cabinet. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (i) Yes. (ii) and (iii) It has not been the practise of successive Governments, nor is it of this Government, to release details of Cabinet business. AFP staffing resources were, of course, considered by the Government in the context of the 1986/87 Budget with the result that they will be increased by 100 in 1986/87, which will bring the total increase in AFP staffing since the Government came to office to 535, an increase of just under 21%. (Question No. 1257) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) How many of the nuclear accidents that have occurred since 1965 have occurred in Australian ports or waters. (2) What warning system is to be employed in the event of a serious nuclear accident occurring and how are people in danger zones to be evacuated. (3) Have safety plans been initiated to protect the people of Brisbane and other ports. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) None. (2) Safety procedures, including warning and evacuation arrangements, for visits by nuclear powered warships (NPWs) are developed by State or Territory NPW Visits Committees. The Committees include representatives from police, emergency services, port authority, and health environmental bodies. Australian NPW radiation monitoring procedures, combined with the US's agreement to notify Australian authorities immediately of any reactor accident would provide adequate warning in the unlikely event of a release of radioactive material. The Commonwealth radiation monitoring team which supervises the program would then provide guidance to State or Territory authorities on the need or otherwise for evacuation of areas in the path of that material. The actual procedures for warning and evacuation would vary in accordance with local conditions. All nuclear weapons accidents are covered in the general emergency arrangements which include warning and evacuation procedures where necessary, and which apply for all visits by foreign warships. Responsibility for these plans rests with port authorities, naval or civil. The Commanding Officer of a visiting warship would inform these authorities immediately of any weapons accident. (3) Yes. (Question No. 1355) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Is the P-80-1 spacecraft scheduled for launch from the United States (US) Vandenberg Air Force Base in May 1988 intended to carry the first TEAL RUBY sensor. (2) Will TEAL RUBY tests conducted with this spacecraft include-(a) target missions demonstrating on-board detection of co-operative airborne targets; or (b) background missions where multispectral radiometric emissions will be recorded. (3) Has there been any approach, formal or otherwise, to the Government from the United States for Australian co-operation in these tests; if so, what are the details. (4) Would-(a) RAN vessels; or (b) RAAF aircraft be used for scheduled TEAL RUBY tests; if so (i) what ship or ships, (ii) how many aircraft and what types, and (iii) in each case, for what particular purpose. (5) Can the Minister for Defence distinguish between those functions of TEAL RUBY applicable-(a) to conventional warfare; (b) to the US SDI, BMD or ABM programmes; and (c) to both conventional and SDI-type programmes; if so, what are-(i) the functions, and (ii) the applications in each case. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The launch of the TEAL RUBY experimental satellite has been delayed indefinitely following the Challenger Shuttle disaster. It is unlikely to be launched before 1990, and the launch vehicle and launch site are not firm. (2) The intent was to conduct both types of tests stated as indicated in The National Times of 10-16 May 1985. (3) Australian co-operation in the TEAL RUBY experiment was to have taken place under the auspices of The Technical Co-operation Program (TTCP). (4) The experiment would have provided Australia with infra red data on land and ocean backgrounds, and on the infra red emission of various aircraft and ships. Since the date of the experiment is now uncertain it is impossible to say what platforms might be used at that time. (5) Australia is interested in TEAL RUBY because it offers a convenient and comprehensive means of measuring infra red background and emissions from ships and aircraft in the Australian region. Had the satellite flown as intended, the data derived from this experiment would have contributed to the total data base on this subject. It was unlikely to aid SDI-type programmes significantly because the systems requirements for the latter are quite different from those of the TEAL RUBY experiment. (Question No. 1362) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Did the Minister for Education advise, in July 1986 that every effort would be made to review the funding and operation of the Education Centres in a manner that would not lead to the closure of any centre. (2) Had an assurance previously been given to the Education Centres that funding would remain at the same level throughout the triennium. (3) What criteria were used to determine whether funding should be withdrawn or reduced. (4) Would it not have been fairer to have reduced funding to all Education Centres, rather than withdrawing it from some, given that in the present economic climate, certain areas of funding had to be cut. (5) Will the withdrawal of funding from 9 Centres, 4 of which are in Queensland, result in loss of employment and assets. (6) Did the Minister announce that services supplied by Education Centres across rural areas would continue to the greatest possible extent; if so, why was funding withdrawn from the Tableland Education Centre which serves 30 rural schools, many of which are in remote areas and cannot be served by an alternative Centre. (7) Will the Minister supply the answer to this question before the debate on the Education Budget comes into the Senate. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. However, the advice provided at the time, which I might remind the honourable senator was given in advance of the Budget decision, was based on advice from the Commonwealth Schools Commission as to how that body would respond should the Government not be able to increase the overall Education Centre budget as recommended in the Commission's report, `Quality and Equality'. (2) No. (3) The Government's decision to reduce the level of funding in the Education Centres Program was made in response to the need to reduce overall expenditure within the public sector. Major reductions have occurred in a number of programs within my portfolio. In applying the reduction to the Education Centres program, the Government sought to maintain the maximum number of centres in a way that would continue services across rural areas and disadvantaged urban areas to the greatest extent possible. (4) The option of reducing funding to all Education Centres was considered. However, it was the Government's view that any attempt to maintain all thirty-two Centres at this reduced level would threaten the viability of many. (5) In those Centres where Commonwealth funding will cease in 1987 the Government believes that the lead time given will minimise job loss, especially in Queensland where many centre staff are seconded from the State education system. Should a Centre cease operating, the assets will not be lost as agreements require these to be transferred to agencies providing similar services. However, it does not follow that those centres no longer funded under the Education Centres Program will necessarily close. Some centres conduct a range of entrepreneurial activities which generate income. These can continue. Some centres may also be able to secure funding under appropriate national elements of other Commonwealth Programs in order to contribute to Commonwealth policy development work in areas like rural education or in-service training for teachers. I have already announced grants for 1987 to enable four centres, which otherwise would have received no Commonwealth funding to build upon their particular areas of expertise. (6) Yes. The Commonwealth will continue its support for the Tablelands Education Centre through a grant of $35,000 under the Projects of National Significance Program. The grant will assist the Centre in providing important information to the Government on how education works in rural areas. The project will build on a range of activities already carried out by the Centre and will investigate the needs of schools and students in rural areas. (Question No. 1415) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 October 1986: What is the total active strength and what proportion of each of the following ranks of the Defence Force currently serve in Canberra- (a) Generals; (b) Vice Admirals; (c) Lieutenant-Generals; (d) Air Marshals; (e) Rear Admirals; (f) Major-Generals; (g) Air Vice Marshals; (h) Commodores; (i) Brigadiers; and (j) Air Commodores. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following table in answer to the honourable senator's question: Rank Active strength as at 30 Sept. 1986 Serving in Canberra Number % of active strength Navy Vice Admiral... 1 1 100 Rear Admiral... 13 9 69 Commodore... 27 18 67 Army General... 1 1 100 Lieutenant-General... 1 1 100 Major-General... 13 8 62 Brigadier... 45 24 53 Air Force Air Marshal... 2 2 100 Air Vice Marshal... 10 7 70 Air Commodore... 29 16 55 Note: Figures for each Service exclude 3 Principal Chaplains who are based in Canberra. (Question No. 1417) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: (1) Can the Minister for Defence explain why it has taken the Department of Defence nearly 12 months to finalise land acquisition for a community child care centre initiated by Army wives in Townsville. (2) Is the Minister satisfied that this unnecessary delay will be resolved immediately so that the Committee is eligible for funding under the children's services programme in the 1986-87 financial year. (3) When will the Department of Defence administrators start responding to the Hamilton Report on the needs of Service wives, so that the bureaucratic paper shuffling is eliminated and much needed facilities and programs developed for Service families. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government is in the process of establishing a Defence Housing Authority which will seek to negotiate ownership of the 14,000 houses owned by the states and leased by the Commonwealth for Defence personnel. The houses currently occupied by the Kutunga Community Child Care Centre in Townsville fall into this category. (2) Because of the time involved in negotiating ownership of these houses, the Minister for Defence has guaranteed the Centre, use of the houses it presently occupies for a further two year period. In the meantime moves to secure permanent facilities and Office of Child Care funding will continue. (3) A team has been set up to implement the recommendations of the Hamilton Report and the Family Information Liaison Service teams. Steps are being taken to permit the conduct of child care facilities in Commonwealth State Housing Agreement houses being occupied by Service families. The first meeting of the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses occurred recently and valuable exchanges of information took place.