Tuesday, 18 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: (i) the fringe benefits tax will place enormous cost increases on employers throughout Australia; (ii) in so doing, the fringe benefits tax will raise the cost of employing labour particularly in remote locations and it will inevitably worsen the already high level of unemployment in Australia; (iii) much of the cost of the tax will be carried by employees as employers reduce benefits; and (iv) the cost of the tax will harm small business particularly as these businesses will be unable to pass on the costs of the tax and as a result many may be forced to close. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Government to repeal this unfair tax before it damages Australian business and thereby reduces the standard of living of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas the fringe benefits tax will place a costly and unfair burden on independent schools. The fringe benefits tax will have a most damaging impact upon schools which provide boarding accommodation for children as they are also required to provide accommodation for staff members to live in and supervise the boarders. Independent schools have limited resources and this additional impost will ultimately have to be passed on to parents, many of whom are already heavily committed to the financing of their children's education. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Parliament to recognize that the future of Australia depends upon the education given to its children and to exempt schools from the operation of the fringe benefits tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from three citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 98 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 262 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 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. that the result of the recent Queensland State election, when the National Party received a comfort- able majority in Parliament with a bare 39% of the votes, violates the rights of a majority of citizens to elect a government of their choice; and 2. that consequently there is an urgent need for electoral and constitutional reform at Federal and State level. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: Support the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) 1985 Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 66 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 Senator Newman (from 279 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985, which will protect individuals against violation of their rights by the impact of laws or by the actions of the government institutions; be effective in implementing Australia's international obligations to properly secure fundamental rights and freedoms; and provide an educative charter. Your petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should support the passage of this Bill at an early date. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McKiernan (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a ``first strike'' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The ``joint U.S.-Australian'' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the ``joint Australian-U.S.'' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Siddons (from 270 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully showeth: in order that Australia no longer take any part in the nuclear confrontation, that as the leases to the US Government of nuclear-connected military bases in Australia come up for periodic renewal, your Honourable House will see that all such agreements are cancelled. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the lease currently negotiable for the Pine Gap base not be approved when submitted to your Honourable House. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Siddons (from 102 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we ask the Government to renew the agreement with the US Government on the facilities at Pine Gap only on receiving from the US Government a written guarantee that it will take up whole-heartedly and in good faith the phased nuclear disarmament plan put forward by the Soviets earlier this year, for complete nuclear disarmament by the year 2000. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Siddons (from 108 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: There is a need for an Independent and Multicultural 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 Senator Siddons (from 19 citizens). Petitions received. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the following parts of the Advisory Council Ordinance 1986, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 62 of 1986 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed: (a) the figure `12' in paragraph 6 (1) (b); (b) sub-sections 8 (1) and (3); and (c) sub-section 10 (3). Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend provisions in certain Acts relating to the disallowance of delegated legislation. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given yesterday I now withdraw Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos 1 to 4 standing in my name for this day, 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. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern attempts by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to politicise the administration of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation by endeavouring to force upon it his own nominee from outside the bank to become its Managing Director to succeed Mr Vern Christie; (b) warns Mr Keating against seeking to impose on the bank anyone as Managing Director who would take greater regard of Federal Government policy, particularly in politically sensitive areas such as home loans, by accepting instructions from Canberra, instead of continuing with its present policy of abiding by commercial principles that take into regard the best interests of the bank's customers rather than the political interests of the Federal Government; (c) demands that administration of the bank continue on the highly regarded, totally competent and commercially oriented basis which has distinguished the outstanding stewardship of Mr Christie, under whom the bank has been impressively successful in a highly competitive environment, within the constraints set by governmental ownership; (d) notes with concern the impact on morale in the bank and the embarrassing position into which Mr Christie has been put by Mr Keating's demands, which have prevented the appointment of a banking professional from within this well-run organisation as Managing Director, to enable Mr Christie to retire, as he originally intended, at the end of this year; (e) commends Mr Christie not only for his distinguished service as Managing Director of the Commonwealth Bank, but also for his determination to maintain the bank's integrity, independence and commercial orientation and for his refusal to step down as Managing Director so long as the threat of politicising by Mr Keating persists; and (f) supports the view of those private enterprise members of the Board of the Commonwealth Bank that Mr Keating should not be allowed to politicise the bank. The PRESIDENT —Order! Again I draw the attention of honourable senators to the length of the notices of motion that are being delivered. Again I ask them to give consideration to that matter. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with approval the report of the Northern Territory Railway Executive Group on the feasibility of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway; (b) commends the Northern Territory Government for its perseverance with the project, in the face of the dishonourable conduct of the Federal Government in refusing to honour its 1983 election promise to build the line; and (c) expresses its support for the Northern Territory Government's objective of seeing the line built, owned and wholly operated by private enterprise. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated, and I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Department of Finance-annual report 1985-86-pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 2. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement of expenditure for October 1986. 3. Director of Public Prosecutions-annual report 1985-86-pursuant to sub-section 33 (2) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. 4. Legal Aid Commission (Act)-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 97 of the Legal Aid Ordinance 1977 and the Seat of Government (Administration) Act. 5. Corporate Affairs Commission of the Australian Capital Territory-annual report 1985-86. 6. Government moves to create new regional commercial television markets-text of a statement by the Minister for Communications. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call on Questions without Notice, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Presidential Gallery of a delegation from the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, led by Sir Reginald Eyre, MP. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend a warm welcome to members of the delegation and wish them a pleasant and enjoyable stay in Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator REID —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I remind the Minister of his comments on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio in Canberra this morning when, asked whether he accepted the findings of the Jones Inquiry into the Australian War Memorial that there had not been any misbehaviour by Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, he said: There was misbehaviour in my view. There was misbehaviour. If the Minister believes so strongly that misbehaviour has occurred, does he intend taking action against the Director under the existing law, which allows dismissal by the Governor-General on the grounds of misbehaviour? Does he agree that this would be fairer to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming than an attempt to amend the existing legislation in that, if the Director were dismissed for misbehaviour, he would have recourse to action for wrongful dismissal? In other words, does he agree that this course of action would at least give the Director a chance to establish, before a properly constituted body, who is right on the question of misbehaviour? Senator GIETZELT —There has always been an option available to the Minister and to the Government to exercise the section of the Australian War Memorial Act which would give the Governor-General the opportunity to dismiss the Director of the Australian War Memorial in accordance with the powers of that Act. It has not been my intention to exercise that option, not because I disagree with the possibility that that action would be successful, but because at the time at which the inquiries were continuing-they have been continuing for the last three months-it would have been prejudicial to the rights of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming to have done so. Therefore, any suggestion by honourable senators opposite that somehow I was engaged in a vendetta against Air Vice-Marshal Flemming does not bear any substance at all. I have indicated to my own Party, to the Government, and to the Australian War Memorial Council that that was an option that was always available and I did not feel obliged at that stage, when the inquiry was taking place, to avail myself of it. However, the Council has, on two occasions in recent days, required the Director not to report for work. He has defied that request and, in the opinion of some persons, that constitutes misbehaviour. He has also incurred a decision of the Council which has expressed no confidence in him and which has also suggested that the Government ought to amend the legislation so that the Council-I stress, the Council and not the Government-may, in its wisdom, seek to remove Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. That is a matter about which I am sure Senator Reid is aware. I have been interviewed many times by the media in the last few days, and even in the last few hours, and I have indicated that that is a matter which is going before Cabinet today and that it is a matter of whether the Government agrees to the suggestion of the Council. If it does the Government will, of course, introduce legislation into the House of Representatives and in due course it will put it before the Senate for its consideration. However, if those options do not eventuate there is still a possibility that the Government may avail itself of the provision to which Senator Reid referred, but I am not prepared to canvass that seriously at this stage. Senator COOK —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations been drawn to an article in the Australian this morning headlined `Hay vows UN move against compulsory trade unionism'-sic-in which there was a report of a speech made to the Western Australian Liberal Party's newest faction, the 500 Club? If so, can the Minister indicate what implications the proposals put forward by the New Right's Mr Andrew Hay would have for Australia's industrial relations system? Senator WALSH —I have indeed seen the article to which Senator Cook refers. I think the headline in this case is an accurate summary of the main points made in Mr Hay's speech, or at least in the report of it in the newspaper, although it is wrong insofar as there is no such thing as compulsory unionism in the absolute sense in Australia-there are provisions for conscientious objectors to opt out of union membership-but that is the fault of Mr Hay rather than the fault of the newspaper. Mr Hay also made some comments about the present leadership of the Liberal Party, as the paper put it, by speculating about a challenge to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard. He said that the Opposition was like an Antarctic dog sled team-the head dog was doing his best but the rest of the dogs were yapping. That is probably an accurate assessment of what is going on in the Liberal Party. I think what really worries Mr Hay about it is that the head dog is not veering to the right quite as hard as Mr Hay would like him to, but no doubt with a few touch-ups from Mr Hay's whip he will do that-assuming he is still there if he needs to be. On the question of the effects of this policy being advocated by Mr Hay on the conciliation and arbitration system, the most important point to note is that, without registered organisations which can represent both employers and employees-and by represent I mean represent effectively insofar as they cover the great majority of the employees and employers who are respondents to an award-a conciliation and arbitration system simply becomes unworkable. So what Mr Hay would see as the abolition of compulsory unionism is, of course, were it to be done in the way that he wants it done, the abolition of the conciliation and arbitration system itself. That is an outcome, of course, which would suit Mr Hay and a number of other people on the extreme Right but it is not an outcome which would be good for the country. It is also worth noting that a nearly closed shop arrangement-there is no such thing as a completely closed shop in terms of compulsory union membership for the reason I mentioned previously, which is that there are provisions for conscientious objectors to opt out of union membership-is absolutely essential. It has been a vital ingredient in ensuring the rapid demise of, say, the Builders Labourers Federation in New South Wales and Victoria following the deregistration of that organisation. If there were not other unions which were awarded coverage and whose members were then given preference in employment on building sites, the action taken by the State and Commonwealth governments against the BLF would not have been nearly as effective as it has. Mr Hay was also advocating-going right over the top, as the far Right is always inclined to do, and trying to drag the Liberal Party dog sled team along with it-that logs of claims should be served on trade unions next year for an increase in working hours, the abolition of overtime and penalty rates, leave loadings and that sort of thing. First, there is a fundamental inconsistency in that if Mr Hay had his way there would be no Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on which to serve those logs of claims. Secondly, at a time when the union movement in general and the Australian Council of Trade Unions leadership in particular have shown an extraordinary degree of responsibility and self-discipline, an awareness of the national interest and a willingness to work for it, it would be provocative and highly counter-productive to add that sort of shopping list of complaints and grievances to the real problem, which is being addressed responsibly by the Government and the unions, of getting an effective wages policy. Senator MacGIBBON —Will the Minister for Veterans' Affairs confirm that on 21 August he received a copy of the O'Connor report into allegations concerning the administration of the Australian War Memorial? Did the Minister request Memorial Council members Corcoran, Wright, McMullen, Fry, Darling and Pugh to attend a meeting that night in his office, the night before the full Council was to receive and consider the O'Connor report? Was such a meeting held and was the Chairman of the Council advised and invited to attend? Does the Minister agree that his purpose in bringing together these Council members, all of whom were appointed by the Hawke Government, was to seek their support for his determination to remove the Director of the Memorial? Senator GIETZELT —I recall the occasion to which Senator MacGibbon refers. I draw his attention to the fact that when I assumed the portfolio responsibility for the Australian War Memorial there was a very acute difference of opinion between the Chairman, Admiral Synnot, and Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. Members of the Council, both individually and collectively, approached me with respect to the problems which existed at the time. In the value judgment I made I did not seek to reappoint Admiral Synnot because I was convinced, on the basis of advice from existing members of the Australian War Memorial Council, that it was impossible for Admiral Synnot to have a continued association with Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. I freely concede that I was led into error by members of the Council who had approached me in regard to the matter. In retrospect I possibly made an error in not recommending the reappointment of Admiral Synnot. As it turned out, the problem was not Admiral Synnot; it was Air Vice- Marshal Flemming. When the matters began to come to a head in respect of some of the reports and information that had been conveyed to me, first by the Auditor-General and then in the O'Connor report, I naturally sought to advise members of the Council, some of whose advice I had previously accepted, of my concerns and misgivings about these matters. I see nothing wrong with taking that action. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask a supplementary question. I take it from the Minister's answer that the meeting took place with a selected number of Council members. Would the Minister now confirm what subject was discussed? Was it a conspiracy to get rid of the Director? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is extending the benefit of a supplementary question. Senator GIETZELT —I have no difficulty in answering that question because over the last three months I have met many members of the Council, some of whom have had complete confidence in Air Vice-Marshal Flemming and some of whom have not. I am still meeting with members of the Council at their request. I make no apology for that. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security a question about the views expressed in the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions about welfare fraud and the belief expressed there that the Department of Social Security and the Australian Federal Police are capable of uncovering only minor cases and very serious cases. Is it true that these two bodies are unable to investigate properly a large group of fraud cases which fall between these two extremes? Are the briefs prepared by DSS field officers of poor quality and therefore of little use to either the AFP or the DPP? Does the Minister agree with the views expressed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and is it true that many cases of welfare fraud go undetected? Senator GRIMES —As has my colleague the Minister for Social Security, I have seen the report of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We note that over 1,900 prosecutions were conducted last year by the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Social Security Act. These prosecutions were all based on inquiries and work done by the Department of Social Security and its officers. The Director of Public Prosecutions knows that departmental manuals require all cases involving suspected misrepresentation to be investigated. Those cases that are simple, uncomplicated and unlikely to lead to prosecution are handled by the Department of Social Security. Others are referred to the Australian Federal Police. Special guidelines have been issued to the Department of Social Security and the regional commanders of the Federal Police to ensure that procedures are properly conducted. The Director of Public Prosecutions mentioned that some briefs are inadequate. The Minister for Social Security obviously is concerned. He is very happy to receive the assistance of the Director of Public Prosecutions to improve briefs if there are problems, although apparently in more than 1,900 cases there were no problems. The Minister would have been happier to receive such a request directly from the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than through the usual method of communication of the Director of Public Prosecution, which seems to be the media. Senator Withers —There is the report to Parliament. Senator GRIMES —I was talking about the time before the report to Parliament. Over the last three years the Government has been concerned about social security fraud, as is every government. We have increased the number of members of the Australian Federal Police to enable them to handle this matter better. We have introduced a tightening up of the procedures in the Department of Social Security. For example, we have required those people seeking unemployment benefit to register with the Commonwealth Employment Service-something, I noticed yesterday, that was advocated by the shadow Minister for Social Security some weeks after it had been instituted by the Government. We also want to take up another method of reducing social security fraud which was advocated by the shadow Minister for Social Security so vigorously for the last couple of years; that is, the introduction of an Australia Card. Unfortunately, since then the shadow Minister for Social Security, who has so vigorously advocated such a reform for the last two years, and his predecessor, who has been advocating it since 1981, have been told to belt up by the Leader of the Opposition and told not to express such views any more. They have now suddenly become born again opponents of the Australia Card. Senator Walters —What about the recommendations of Costigan? Senator GRIMES —Dear oh dear! We ought to talk about some of the recommendations of royal commissions in this area. My predecessor, Senator Chaney, quite justifiably handed over practically a whole section of the Department of Social Security to detect social security fraud which was allegedly detected by the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. After a year that investigation by the Department had to be called off because it had found fraud to the extent of $1,200. I may be wrong; it may have been $1,500. The simple fact of the matter is that on anybody's estimate-on our side of the Parliament or on the other side-of the amount of money which is ripped off the taxpayer by taxation fraud exceeds every estimate of social security fraud by many times. Yet Opposition members and now the Director of Public Prosecutions put all the emphasis on social security fraud. We take it seriously. We believe anybody caught defrauding the taxpayer through the social security system should be prosecuted. We are showing that we are serious about it by introducing an Australia Card. It is Opposition members who are going to vote against it to protect the tax evaders; they are not worried about social security fraud. Senator SANDERS —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the anti-conservation media campaign presently being conducted by the Forest Industries Campaign Association Ltd, FICA. Firstly, what funding does the Government provide for the operation of the Forestry and Forest Products Industries Council, FAFPIC, which operates through the Industry Council Secretariat in the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce? Secondly, has FAFPIC, any FAFPIC member or any government department employee been involved in FICA or its media campaign? Thirdly, has the Government provided any funds, personnel or other support for the preparation, publication or screening of the FICA advertisements? Fourthly, does the Minister or his Government support or agree with the contents of the advertisements? Senator BUTTON —I am aware that there have been advertisements on television and, I believe, in the newspapers which might well be part of the campaign to which Senator Sanders referred. Those advertisements are, as I understand it, in their prime purpose for the promotion of the timber industry in Australia. But I am not familiar with their content in any detail. I have seen one of them on television, I think. I am not aware of any funding provided by the Commonwealth Government for this purpose. I am, however, aware that substantial sums of money are provided by the Commonwealth Government to support various conservation activities throughout Australia. With regard to Senator Sanders's question-it is quite precise in its detail-I am not aware of the particular details of the allegations which he made but I will have those matters looked into and try to provide the honourable senator with a further answer in due course. Senator McINTOSH —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the recent decision of the Indonesian Government not to renew a visa for the Australian Financial Review correspondent in Jakarta, Michael Byrnes. Has the Government sought or received from the Indonesian Government an explanation for the decision? Did the Government assist in any way the attempts of the Australian Financial Review to have the visa renewed? If not, will it consider doing so? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government regrets the Indonesian Government's decision not to renew Mr Byrnes's visa past its expiry date of 23 November. Over recent months the Government has taken up with the Indonesians the question of the renewal of Mr Byrnes's visa. We are disappointed that this decision will now leave no Australian correspondents resident in Indonesia. More generally, the Government is disappointed at the decision of the Indonesian Government to deny entry visas to Australian journalists. The Government has indicated to the Indonesian Government on a number of occasions its support for the free flow of information between Australia and Indonesia. Access to Indonesia by Australian journalists is obviously integral to this end. Most recently, the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, made this point to the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar, during the Association of South East Nations post-ministerial conference discussions in Manila in June. The Government's support for the principle of Press freedom is unequivocal and is well known internationally. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, concerns the ceremony that was held at the Australian War Memorial to proclaim the Veterans' Entitlements Act, about which the Minister has previously volunteered information to the Senate. Will the Minister now advise whether any communication was received, either verbally or in writing, by him or his staff from anyone at the War Memorial, recommending that the ceremony not be held there? Senator GIETZELT —I know of no occasion when any recommendation was made to me that the ceremony should not be held at the Australian War Memorial. Senator ZAKHAROV —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security whether his attention has been drawn to a recent article in the Australian in which Katharine West advocated: . . . the dole should be phased out within a year . . . the minimum time required to organise socially or economically productive opportunities for that proportion of dole recipients who are now genuinely unable to obtain work or training. Is this a realistic proposition? What would be the social effect of such action? Senator GRIMES —I must admit that I no longer read Ms West's articles in the Australian because they are basically the same article. I am much more concerned about the fate of Dick Davenport in Garry Trudeau's cartoon Doonesbury. I find it far closer to reality than anything Ms West writes. I did hear someone mention that she has given up the family. Apparently she is not mentioning the family in every article because she has had so many herself. She is now recommending that the dole should be phased out within a year, I gather. She says that this would enable us to organise economically and socially productive activities for those 600,000-odd people who are unemployed in this country at the moment. Miss West-or Ms West, or whatever she goes by now-has a real problem. On the one hand she advocates that we must drastically reduce government expenditure, that we must practically wipe out the Public Service in this country. On the other hand, the next week she states that we should treble or quadruple family allowances and double dependent spouse rebates. A week later still, in another variation-this is a new variation-she says that we should employ an army of public servants to get everybody who is on the dole into employment. She says that we should provide another army to provide some special jobs for them which are what she calls `socially and economically productive'. She is advocating the biggest public intervention in the economy that anyone could possibly conceive. At the same time she is advocating an enormous cut in government expenditure and an enormous cut in the Public Service. That is not economics; that is witchcraft. `Black magic', I suppose, would be a less sexist term to use about Ms West. That is black magic. That is nonsense, as is most of the stuff she writes. I advise everybody that the terrible death of Dick Davenport and the fate of Lacey Davenport in her election campaign, in Garry Trudeau's cartoon, are much better and a more practical guide to what is happening in this community. We will find more answers there than we will ever find in the nonsense written by Ms West. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and it follows his answer yesterday on the identity card and the cash economy. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that the identity card system cannot assist in detecting cash economy transactions when there is no requirement for the issue of group certificates, tax stamp sheets and so on and where there is no documentary record of the cash transaction? Do the cash transactions not caught by the ID card system include all household transactions under $10,000, including the employment of gardeners, painters, plumbers, electricians and other household handymen? Senator WALSH —There are a lot of questions there about details of specific applications of the ID card, the answers to which, quite frankly, I do not know. However, I do know that the information circulated by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia last Sunday, I think it was, is absolutely false. The Deputy Leader of the National Party asserted that for every livestock sale or transaction the Australia Card would have to be produced. That, of course, is absolutely false and typical of the misinformation and disinformation which the Opposition delights in circulating about almost all government policies. On the question of livestock sales it is, of course, very necessary that the identity of the seller be correctly recorded, as it is necessary-- Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order. I asked the Minister a fairly straightforward and, indeed, fairly simple question about the Australia Card and its application to cash transactions. The Minister claimed total ignorance but is now proceeding to try to give us a detailed answer on a question that was not raised. He is showing his usual capacity to address what he alleges to be the Opposition's position and his apparent incapacity to address the Government's position. Mr President, I ask you to direct his attention to the question that was asked and seek him to reply in a relevant manner instead of debating the question by raising issues which have nothing to do with the question asked. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. The Minister was asked a question on the ID card and I understand that he is embracing that subject in a way. He is not debating the matter as yet and I declare that he is in order, but I draw his attention to standing order 100 nonetheless. Senator WALSH —I will not go into the livestock question any more because there will probably be another question about that later when I will give the Opposition the whole bucket. The PRESIDENT —But you will not debate it, will you? Senator WALSH —No, I certainly will not debate it. The substantial relevance or importance of the Australia Card-the elimination of tax evasion in those areas where the payer is claiming a payment as a deduction from the payer's taxable income-I think was dealt with yesterday sufficiently comprehensively for even the Opposition to understand if it wanted to. There are, of course-I think this is what Senator Chaney is getting at-other transactions where the payer cannot claim as a deduction from the payer's taxable income the amount paid for a service rendered. Under those circumstances, the discipline on the payer to report the payment with the proper Australia Card number which identifies with certainty the recipient of the payment is very much weaker or indeed is quite weak. However, the Australia Card will still have, in an indirect way, a very substantial effect on the level of tax evasion within that cash economy for household services, the payment for which is not deductible from taxable income. For example, if a person is in the habit of receiving his income in that way-that is, not declaring it or alternatively declaring portions of the income received, perhaps under a variety of different names in order to reduce the average tax rate which is payable, possibly to reduce it down to zero-what can he then do with the money? The acquisition of the money has not been legitimately recorded. If the Australia Card were operating, on an attempt to dispose of the money the disposal would be cross-checked in a variety of ways. For example, if somebody had earned a lot of money which had not been declared as taxable income-I have no doubt that plenty of honourable senators would know about this-unless he wants to stick it in a mattress, when in effect it becomes an interest free loan to the Government, I suppose, or burns it, what does he do with it? Does he buy a house? With the Australia Card system operating he would get caught for tax evasion if he bought a house, as he would if he put the money into a bank account, as he would if he tried to remit it overseas, as he would if he tried to buy shares in a company. In other words, he would hardly be able to enjoy the fruits of his ill-gotten gains-- The PRESIDENT —Order! We are now getting into the realm of debate and I ask the Minister to come back to the question. Senator WALSH —It is true that the Australia Card will be less effective in those areas where the payment is not tax deductible. However, it would still have a significant influence on closing down such loopholes. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for confirming that household transactions of the sort I identified with gardeners, painters, plumbers, electricians and so on will not be caught by the card in any direct sense. With respect to the Minister's question about what to do with the money, I ask: Will the Australia Card have to be produced to bookmakers and other gambling outlets, which are traditional outlets for the laundering of cash money, and will it have to be produced every time one uses cash to purchase goods in a store, which is another way tax free money can be used? Senator WALSH —I did not confirm that what Senator Chaney said was correct. I do not believe that the Australia Card will be required to be produced to bookmakers. For crooks, that has been a long-standing excuse for explaining away money they cannot account for in any other way. I recall that in New South Wales in the last century a corrupt Lands Minister called Willis tried to explain away his ill-gotten gains in that way. However, that plea does not always work, something that was well known to Mr Willis, who promptly hopped on a boat in Sydney and took off to South Africa and never came back. The excuse that a person won the money at the races is one that a lot of people have tried, of course. It does not always work. Senator GILES —The Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry and the Treasurer is apparently aware of a report in the Sun-Herald on 16 November that National Party Deputy Leader Ralph Hunt had sent 50 copies of the Australia Card Bill to the National Farmers Federation warning it that the Australia Card would have to be produced at cattle sales for every transaction. Does the Australia Card legislation require production of the card at livestock sales? Has tax evasion been a feature of livestock sales in the past? Senator WALSH —What will be required for livestock sales, assuming they are being conducted through an agent, is that the agent when first doing business with a client will require the production of the card. He will record the card number of the client and ultimately remit that information to the Australian Taxation Office. For subsequent transactions with that agent the production of the card will not be required because the agent has already satisfied the obligation to ensure that the person who is selling the livestock is who he claims to be. It is very necessary to ensure that the sellers of livestock sell the livestock in the correct name and that the transactions are reported. I remember that some years ago in the central wheat belt of Western Australia, the area from which I come, pig sales were conducted regularly-fortnightly I think-at a town called Merredin. Every time there was a pig sale the banks, which were located in an adjoining town, used to give Elder Smith a gladstone bag full of crinkly bank notes that would then be taken up to Merredin to the pig sale and handed over to the farmers who sold pigs in names such as Ned Kelly, Bob Menzies and so on. Elder Smith was doing that even before John Elliott took it over. The stock agents, of course, were clearly collaborating in a major tax evasion exercise which flourished for years. The reason it flourished was that the identity of the seller was not accurately recorded on the sale transaction or reported to the Taxation Office. With the Australia Card that sort of taxation fraud will become impossible. Indeed, I think it was virtually wiped out in the Merredin area some time ago. I do not know whether we should assume from Mr Hunt's recent complaint about the tightening up and proper identification of the sellers of livestock that it still flourishes in Mr Hunt's electorate. If it does, perhaps that explains why he is complaining about the introduction of the Australia Card. The example which I have just given-I know it was a pretty spectacular one because it flourished for years-of gladstone bags stuffed full of bank notes that were taken up from Kellerberrin to Merredin every second week by the stock agents drives home very clearly the point of how essential it is that the seller of goods be properly identified and that the Taxation Office be aware of the transaction. That is something that the Australia Card will ensure occurs. Senator WALTERS —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask the honourable gentleman whether he agrees with the very excellent statement made by Senator Walsh, as reported on the Carleton-Walsh Report a couple of months ago, in which he said: I know some people believe . . . that Budget deficits don't matter . . . They do matter in the degree to which they lock in future expenditure. If we had a public debt interest payment, the same level of outlays as it was in 1982- I interpose, the Fraser years- we would in this financial year have about $4 billion extra to either cut taxes, increase welfare spending or whatever else you wanted to do with it. But because we have run a sequence of high Budget deficits, we are lumbered with a crippling public debt interest payment which restricts the ability of this Government and governments for the foreseeable future, to deliver the programs they would like to-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will come to her question. Senator WALTERS —Well, I am, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —The honourable senator is giving a lot of information. Senator WALTERS —I repeat: . . . to deliver the programs they would like to deliver. I have asked the Minister whether he agrees with that statement. I also ask: Will the Minister push in Caucus and Cabinet for a reappraisal of the levels of government expenditure and a mini-Budget to reduce the current disastrous high level of expenditure that the Hawke Government is pursuing, thereby placing the future of Australia in serious jeopardy? Senator BUTTON —If I decide to put anything to Cabinet or Caucus and if I am successful, the honourable senator will hear about it at the appropriate time. But she will not hear about it today at Question Time. I remind Senator Walters of the context in which I believe those remarks of my colleague Senator Walsh were made. They were simply that this Government inherited a prospective $10 billion domestic deficit and-- Senator Walters —That is not true. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters, I have called you to order on a number of occasions at Question Time today. I ask you to desist. Senator BUTTON —It has been said by a finer mind than Senator Walters's-if I may say this without being offensive-that the human mind cannot bear too much reality. Senator Walters cannot bear any. The fact is that this Government inherited a prospective $10 billion deficit and the domestic deficit is now $3.5 billion. This Government has brought about that change. If Senator Walters finds that unpalatable, I am sorry. Senator VALLENTINE —What evidence has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs got that the sinking of the Southern Raider on 9 October and the detention of four Australian and four New Zealand crew members is nothing to do with illegal fishing for lobsters or drug smuggling but is due to French fears of spying? Is it true that the French Government is preparing a nuclear test site on Kerguelen Island, which is about 3,000 kilometres south-west of Perth and from where the prevailing winds blow directly to Australia? Has the Australian Government made any representation to the French Government objecting to the construction of a nuclear test site at Kerguelen, which is close to the Australian islands of Heard and Macdonald and much closer to Australia than Mururoa Atoll? Is the Government prepared to challenge the French authorities to tell the truth about the sinking of the Southern Raider and why the crew has been detained on Reunion Island so that we do not get a repetition of the lies and falsehoods which followed the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in July 1985? Senator GARETH EVANS —The captain and second-in-command of the Southern Raider were charged on 17 October with infringing French fishing and merchant navy laws. Subsequently they were placed under judicial control for infringement of drug laws. Magistrates on Reunion are collecting information on the sinking of the Southern Raider to determine whether to proceed to trial. We therefore have no evidence at this stage that the detention of the crew of the Southern Raider is related to French fears of spying. It will not be until the magistrates decide whether to proceed to trial-we have a full list of the formal charges against the crew-that we will be able to determine whether representations to the French Government are appropriate. We have asked the French authorities to finalise the legal processes as quickly as possible so that we can be in a position to respond appropriately. The question of possible French interest in nuclear testing on Kerguelen Island first arose in December 1984 when the French Consul-General in Melbourne, speaking in his personal capacity it seems, mooted this possibility. The French Defence Minister at the time, Charles Hernu, denied any such plans and the Australian Government has no reason to doubt this denial. This remains the case today. The Government is not aware of any evidence that would lend support to more speculation about French interest in nuclear testing on Kerguelen. I should just finally add that Australia's strong opposition to French nuclear testing in particular stems from the fact that France is the only country that does conduct nuclear tests outside the home territory of a nuclear weapons state and we have repeatedly insisted that, at the very least, France should take its nuclear test program home to metropolitan France. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the fringe benefits tax payable by non-profit making organisations where non-wage benefits are granted for services rendered by people who are not employees? By way of illustration I refer in particular to an honorary president of a trade union who is not an employee of that union but who receives from it a monthly expense allowance of $450 tax free, totalling $5,400 a year tax free; an honorarium of $200 per working day when not engaged in other official capacities, probably totalling a minimum of $30,000 a year; and free use of a Holden Statesman car. If fringe benefits tax is not payable by the union involved, why not? Are any of those benefits subject to income tax in the recipient's hands, particularly the honorarium payable by the union, the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia, on those days when the Senate is not sitting, to Senator Morris? Senator WALSH —The fundamental liability for fringe benefits tax is incurred if an employer-employee relationship exists. In the first hypothetical case that was cited, it would rest ultimately, I would expect, on whether the Commissioner of Taxation declared that the person concerned was an employee. If so, the fringe benefits tax would be payable. The fact that either an employer or an employee does not call himself either an employer or an employee I would not expect necessarily means that the Taxation Commissioner will accept his definition. I will refer that to the Treasurer for a more direct answer. Senator Baume also asked whether honorariums were taxable under the income tax law. My understanding of the matter is that they are not, but I will have that confirmed. Senator Watson —They are not? You are misleading the Senate again. You are completely wrong. Senator WALSH —I am talking here about a union I do know something about. I do not really know anything about the liquor trades union but I do remember the farmers union in Western Australia, of which I was a member, and I am still a member of the successor organisation. Most years at the State conference the question of the president's honorarium, as I think it used to be called, which was taxable, and allowance, which was not taxable, used to be raised. Year after year it was said: `We can't increase the former because that is taxable, so we will increase the latter'. That, of course, was exactly what was happening on an ever-increasing scale. People who were being paid what was a return for effort-a wage equivalent-were increasingly having that amount converted to a payment that was called something else, frequently, of course, in kind. That is exactly what the farmers union in Western Australia was doing in those days. It was arranging the remuneration of its president in such a way that the level of taxation was minimised. To go back, the term `honorarium' which Senator Michael Baume used was, I think, the term used in the case I have cited. It was the honorarium paid to the president at that time which was taxable. I will have that checked as well with the Treasurer. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I want to know whether the first part of the Minister's answer about honorariums is the one we should take into account, when he said, in fact, that they were not taxable, or the second part of his response, when he said that they were taxable. I am afraid that I cannot understand which of those comments he wants me to believe. Senator WALSH —On reflection-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator WALSH —I have said this before, you silly little woman over there. You are almost as silly as your man. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will withdraw that remark. Senator WALSH —Very well, I withdraw, Mr President. I believe that I initially confused the term `honorarium' and `allowance', but at all times I said that it was subject to confirmation. On reflection, I believe what is called an honorarium would be taxable and what is called an allowance would not. I will have that checked. Senator REYNOLDS —Has the Minister representing the Attorney-General seen a report by the Human Rights Commission which includes evidence that prisoners in Australia have virtually no human rights, as claimed by Professor Hawkins of the Sydney University criminology department? Is it true that in New South Wales and Queensland prison regulations do not even acknowledge a prisoner's right to medical treatment? When will the Federal Government take steps to ensure that all Australian prisons comply with the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners? Senator GARETH EVANS —The report to which Senator Reynolds refers is a reported account of a recent paper by Professor Gordon Hawkins, who is not a human rights commissioner. He is not a member of the Commission, as he was described in the Press report, but rather an expert in criminology who is a consultant to the Human Rights Commission and has been carrying out a study on prisoners' rights. Professor Hawkins has prepared an occasional paper, or a discussion paper, entitled `Prisoners' Rights: A study of Human Rights and Commonwealth Prisoners' which, I am advised, is due to be released by the Commission today. I have asked for the paper to be provided to the honourable senator and anyone else who may be interested in it. The occasional paper states that, although the prison regulations of all States, including those of New South Wales and Queensland, have provisions regarding the health care of prisoners and the provision of medical attention, none of them confer any right to medical treatment. A number of other points, apparently, are made in the paper which perhaps justify the kind of language which was reported and which Senator Reynolds refers to. As the paper, however, is not a formal report but is simply issued for the purpose of stimulating discussion it is premature to talk of government action to implement any particular proposals. No doubt that is something the Government will have in mind at the end of the day when this process is complete. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Science aware of extensive research undertaken by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in developing an artificial sweetener called aspartame? Does the Minister agree that this artificial sweetener will be in direct competition with Australia's sugar industry and that CSIRO resources are being used to bolster a product which is in direct competition with one of Australia's most profitable export industries? Why is CSIRO undertaking research in this area when there is already considerable private research being done by large multinational companies in developing artificial sweeteners? Does the Minister agree that CSIRO's scarce resources would be better utilised in further research for and development of our successful and competitive primary industries than in assisting an industry which will be in competition with our rural export industries? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of one thing relating to the Queensland sugar industry and Senator Bjelke-Petersen ought to be aware of it, too: When this Government came to power in 1983, the Fraser Government was under pressure from the Western Australian Government to support the development of a sugar industry on the Ord River. This Government stopped that in the interests of the Queensland sugar industry. That should not be forgotten by Queensland's sugar farmers. If I might just take Senator Bjelke-Petersen through her question in the course of my answer, let me say at the outset that while I have long recognised her as a protagonist of the flat tax I did not, until she asked this question, have evidence that she was a protagonist of flat earth policies as well. What this question really implies is that the process of scientific investigation and discovery should be limited by the facts which happen to exist in north Queensland; for example, the sugar industry. The process of scientific investigation and discovery cannot be limited by matters like that. Let me go through some of the assumptions in the honourable senator's question. I make it quite clear that the sugar industry is already in competition with artificial sweeteners. It will be in competition with artificial sweeteners in the future. Like any other industry it will have to take its chance in the market-place and be the preferred choice of the vast majority of human beings or it will not survive under any circumstance. The research CSIRO is doing in connection with artificial sweeteners has nothing to do with that. I am personally not aware of CSIRO's research into a sweetener called aspartame, I think one calls it. I am delighted to hear that CSIRO is doing research into such a nice sounding product as aspartame. It sounds like an exotic disease to me. Be that as it may, CSIRO performs a great variety of research functions in various industries and for various food products. It will continue to do so. It cannot be deterred by the suggestion that the results of this research might make a marginal impact on Australia's sugar industry. The assumptions in the honourable senator's question are that everybody in the whole world should stop thinking about fabrics other than wool. Because we have a wool industry the honourable senator's assumption is that no research should be commissioned by governments or anybody else into man made fibres. Senator Boswell —Let the private enterprise people research it. Senator BUTTON —I understand Senator Boswell's interjections. From him they are totally understandable but not from anybody who has given the issues any serious thought. Research into a whole range of products of this kind will go on. Some of that research has led to great success in new primary industries in Australia. Senator Boswell —It is a chemical product. Senator BUTTON —There is a product which is marketed under the name betatene which is an artificial ingredient used in margarine. I know that the honourable senator is against margarine but let us assume that we have margarine. A product has been developed by research in Australia which adds colour and certain other properties including, I believe, vitamin properties to margarine. That is partly a result of research by Commonwealth-funded bodies. That is a highly successful export industry. Senator Lewis —That might have been worth while. Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis says: `That might have been worth while'. Of course it might have been worth while. It is worth while. One of the great disabilities from which all human beings suffer and from which members of the Opposition in the Senate suffer more than others is the incapacity to decide the precise direction of all scientific endeavour. That is a great disability. I am sorry that we cannot all decide such questions. On the basis of this question, as by implication I am invited to, I do not propose to make any interference in CSIRO's research programs. Senator SIBRAA —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate how many South Pacific Forum countries have signed the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty? When will the protocols to the Treaty be open for signature? Have any indications been given by the eligible states as to whether they will adhere to the protocols? Senator GARETH EVANS —To date 10 of the 13 South Pacific Forum countries have signed the Treaty of Rarotonga-the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty-and seven have now deposited instruments of ratification. Eight ratifications are required for the Treaty to enter into force. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill to clear the way for Australia's ratification is before Parliament. I hope that it will be able to be debated in the Senate early next week. The protocols to the Treaty which will be open for signature on 1 December provide for the United States, the United Kingdom and France to apply the provisions of the Treaty to their South Pacific territories and for the nuclear weapons states-the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China-to undertake not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against parties to the Treaty nor to conduct nuclear testing in the South Pacific. It is the Government's very strong hope that all the eligible states which have major responsibility for international peace and security will adhere to the protocols. The situation with respect to each of these parties at the moment is as follows: The United States is studying the protocols with an open mind. It would appear that some sections of the United States Administration have a more open mind than others in that respect. France has declared publicly that it will not sign. Although we hope that that is not its final position, at the moment it appears that it may be. We are reiterating the point that the Treaty manifestly is not anti-French, as has been alleged, but pro-South Pacific in character. The United Kingdom, like the United States, is still considering the matter. The Soviet Union has said that it will sign and China has also indicated a positive attitude. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I table a resolution from the Australian War Memorial Council which includes the signatures of members of the Council present at the meeting last evening. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I do not wish to debate the matter at this stage. The paper relates to the matter which was the subject of a resolution in the Senate yesterday and a series of questions today and yesterday. I note that the Australian War Memorial Council resolves: . . . that . . . in all circumstances, that it no longer has the confidence that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming can properly manage the affairs of the Australian War Memorial in accordance with the Act. I take this occasion to say that I think that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has got himself, the Memorial and Mr Flemming into a situation which is quite intolerable. I simply repeat today the request which the Senate made of him, that this matter be dealt with in a more satisfactory way than the Minister has dealt with it to the present. There has been an inquiry in which it is common ground between the War Memorial and Air Vice-Marshal Flemming that the rules of natural justice have not been satisfied. There are contested issues of fact and yet on the findings of that inquiry into the Australian War Memorial by Mr Jones, Air Vice-Marshal Flemming is not guilty of misconduct of a sort which entitles him to be dismissed, a view which the Minister publicly disputes. It is the Opposition's view that we are left in a situation which may not be capable of resolution and which certainly will not be resolved to anybody's final satisfaction if the Minister's present course is stuck with. If the Minister and the Council pursue a course which is to amend the law to make the dismissal of Air Vice-Marshal Flemming possible without Air Vice-Marshal Flemming having any right to contest the contested issues of fact, an important section of the community will continue to distrust the whole administration of the War Memorial, something that I believe the Minister would not wish. I repeat to the Minister the request which was made to him by the Opposition at Question Time, that he should either have a full legal inquiry of the sort which Air Vice-Marshal Flemming has requested, in which these contested issues of fact can be dealt with satisfactorily and once and for all, or, if the Minister and the Council are going to persist with their course of seeking to dismiss Air Vice-Marshal Flemming notwithstanding the finding of Mr Jones that he is not guilty of misconduct, leave the law in the situation in which Air Vice-Marshal Flemming will have access to some tribunal where these disputed questions of fact can be determined. It seems to me that if the Minister gets his way Air Vice-Marshal Flemming will be left without a remedy and there will be no way of the contesting views of this matter being finally settled. I believe to have that hanging over the institution of the War Memorial would be a serious error of judgment on the part of the Minister, on the part of the Government, and on the part of the Council. I make this additional entry into the debate now because I believe that there will be widespread disquiet in the community if that state of affairs is allowed to continue. I believe that the Minister, on sober reflection, will agree that it would be a most unfortunate end to this matter. I am unable to predict what stance the Opposition would take if such legislation were introduced into this place. But I put the Minister on notice that we certainly will be concerned if these contested issues of fact are not determined and a cloud is left hanging over a very important national institution. Too many allegations and questions have been raised for the matter to be swept under the carpet in the way that I think is envisaged under the present proposal. I put the Minister on notice that we will not be prepared to put this matter down if natural justice is not observed and if Air Vice-Marshal Flemming is not treated fairly. The Opposition does not make a judgment on whether Air Vice-Marshal Flemming should or should not continue as the Director of the Australian War Memorial. That is a matter on which we do not have the advice of a finding on those contested issues of fact. That is a matter which we cannot determine because we have the Air Vice-Marshal's views, we have other views, and those views have never been tested. We will certainly not be satisfied with a situation in which the matter is left up in the air in this way. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave-I think there would be common ground that nobody in the Parliament, either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, would want in any way to be involved in actions which would disturb or destroy the important place the Australian War Memorial has in the hearts and minds not only of veterans but also of other citizens throughout Australia. It is a very important institution and one that we cherish greatly for its very innovative and commemorative work. However, having said that, it is also the responsibility of the Government-and, in my case, of the Minister-to ensure that the War Memorial functions in accordance with the Act. To that extent, there have been numerous inquiries which have all found serious problems of maladministration. I do not want to go too far down that track. I ask the Opposition: In what way is it relying upon a statement that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming has been denied natural justice? Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney was heard in silence. I ask that the same consideration be given to the Minister. Senator GIETZELT —The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney)-I respect his view and his position-has raised the question of denial of natural justice. I see no evidence of this. Until the Opposition can present such evidence, other than the say-so of the Director himself, all the advice that is available to me, and certainly all the evidence I have, is that in respect of the matters I raised with the investigation and its agent, Mr Jones, there was no question that it required witnesses to canvass correspondence and communications between the Director and me. As I understand the issue, the Council did give both Mr Jones and Air Vice-Marshal Flemming every opportunity to explain their views and conclusions on the evidence that was collected. I think that one of the great misnomers in the current difficulties is the repetitive suggestion that there has been a denial of natural justice. I urge the Opposition to test that with members of the Council to see whether they failed in their responsibilities to inquire, in an acceptable form, and consistent with natural justice, in regard to Mr Jones's report and the Council's response thereto. The only advice I can give is what is told to me. In those circumstances I am satisfied that there has been no denial of natural justice. I am certainly satisfied in respect of the issues I raised-the six issues involving public accountability-and in respect of my responsibilities to this Parliament to avoid giving misleading information, that the files of the Memorial, my Department and my office speak for themselves insofar as a whole range of issues in dispute. It is not a question of whether I or Air Vice-Marshal Flemming would be cross-examined on those substantive issues. However, if the Opposition is in possession of information that there is, and has been, a denial of natural justice, that is certainly not available to me, it is certainly not available to the Government, and it is certainly not available to the Council. As that report indicates, the Council has been a very fine representative body. I believe that the members of the Council are all veterans. There might be one exception to that, a member who was not nominated by me. They are people who in their own right have made contributions to the community generally as well as to the defence of their country. I do not believe that those persons would be associated with any attempt to deny natural justice to anyone on their staff or more particularly to the head of a statutory organisation. Unless the Opposition can come up with evidence and not rhetoric, the Government is in no position to respond to what I believe is a fairly open approach that Senator Chaney has taken. I would prefer the matter not to be canvassed any further and for members of the Opposition, if they genuinely want to protect the War Memorial and the Director, to discuss with me what evidence they have that natural justice has been denied to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the year ended 30 June 1986 contains a number of very important features and raises a number of controversial matters. In the time available I will only have an opportunity to mention the outstanding feature of it, which is welfare fraud prosecutions. This is particularly relevant because of the current debate about the Australia Card. In the section under the heading `Welfare fraud prosecutions' the Director makes some very disturbing comments indeed. He says that he initiated discussions with the Department of Social Security and the Australian Federal Police in regard to the investigation and prosecution of welfare fraud. That move reflected concern on the part of his office that welfare fraud was not being effectively controlled. The reason for that, as he goes on to point out, is that less serious matters are investigated by the Department of Social Security and the material it produces for prosecution purposes is, in many cases, quite deficient. We have had some answers from the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) on that matter at Question Time today. Of more important concern is the comment from the Director that the Australian Federal Police, which has the more serious cases referred to it, does not have the resources to cope with any more than a few of the large number of cases referred to it and that it then concentrates its resources on the very serious cases. On the one hand all the minor cases are, in many instances, inadequately dealt with by the Department of Social Security, with at least some prosecutions emerging, and on the other hand the very serious cases are investigated by the Australian Federal Police, but a great range of cases in the middle order of seriousness and concern are apparently not investigated at all by either the Australian Federal Police or the Department of Social Security. As the Director points out, in the case of the Australian Federal Police the reason is simply that it does not have the resources to cope with these cases. Today, in answer to a question, Senator Grimes claimed, and certainly with some justification, that the resources of the Federal Police had been increased but clearly they have not been adequately increased to deal with the very serious deficiency, which has been outlined by the Director of Public Prosecutions in this report. As I have said, it is an area which is highly relevant to the debate which the Government has initiated in relation to the Australia Card. It is claiming that the Australia Card will be of vital importance to the Government and law enforcement agencies in general in this country in dealing with social security fraud as well as taxation fraud. However, judging from this report of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the problem being faced is not the difficulty of investigation in the absence of an Australia Card but the fact that cases are not being investigated at all. A wide range of cases are simply not investigated because the resources of the Australian Federal Police are inadequate. I believe that this section of this valuable report completely repudiates the claims of the Government in relation to the Australia Card. The report requires the Government to think again about the Australia Card and to think very seriously about the resources that are being provided by this Government to the Australian Federal Police in this matter, if not in others. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.27) —I too would like to speak to the 1985-86 annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I gathered from the comments of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) at Question Time that Mr Temby is probably on the shaky end of the slide along with the head of the Australian War Memorial inasmuch as he is castigated for going public about the problems that he has. I hope that is not the case. Senator Grimes —Not at all. Senator ARCHER —The inference was clearly there. I regret it if I took up the inference when the Minister had not intended to make it. The problems that go with trying to execute the duties that are before law enforcement organisations are very considerable. I noticed in the text of the report that it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that can only undermine the deterrent value of prosecution in this area where only a very small proportion of the people who are guilty of large scale social security fraud are dealt with and the rest are not ultimately charged or dealt with in any way. At lunch time today I heard the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) defending an attitude towards the Australia Card. He made comment that a particular case which was listed in the report gave details of one person who had been before the courts having had quite a record of success in the fraud game. It is possible with adequate resources to do this without an Australia Card, an identity card or any other sort of card. In that case the Minister said that Wayne Thomas Patterson between April 1984 and July 1985 obtained approximately $380,000 using his own and 53 fictitious names to claim the unemployment benefit in Victoria and Queensland. Two points need to be made. Firstly, this shows that $380,000 can be picked up without an ID card. Secondly, it shows that there is still not necessarily any way in which we can stop the practice of people printing cards with someone else's name on them. So the Minister, in trying to defend the card, blew the two best arguments-one might say `he Blewett'-inasmuch as the arguments that he is using do not stand up. What concerns me, though, is the comments from the Director of Public Prosecutions about the problems he has in respect of law enforcement. We have also had comments from Major-General Grey of the Australian Federal Police, the Tasmanian Police Commissioner, Max Robinson, on behalf of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, and so on. These people are all in the same position of saying that they can maintain the law enforcement programs of this country provided they are given resources with which to do so. I believe that there is no real justification yet for spending enormous amounts of money on the installation of another system until we have the present systems in reasonable working order. I would certainly ask that the Government give greater consideration to seeing that the existing systems work rather than setting up another one just to cover up the problems that the police forces have because the necessary resources are not being provided to make their systems work. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.31) —I too would like to join my colleagues in speaking on criticisms by the Director of Public Prosecutions. As Senator Durack has already said, the main criticism is that the very minor cases are dealt with by the Department of Social Security and the very major cases are dealt with by the Australian Federal Police. The Director says that a very large group in the middle is not investigated at all. This does not lead to a great deal of confidence from the taxpayers' point of view that all that is able to be done is being done. As the Director says, the main reason for this is a lack of resources. I ask the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) to turn to page 20 of the report of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Table 5b indicates that apparently the Australian Capital Territory has resources which the other States do not have. The table lists matters dealt with on indictment in 1985-86. According to the table the Minister's and my home State of Tasmania, under the heading `Trials', had only three defendants, one plea of guilty and two trials. In terms of the outcome of trials, there were two defendants, one conviction, one acquittal and no others. In comparison, the Australian Capital Territory, under the heading `Trials', had 97 defendants, 53 pleas of guilty and 40 trials. Under the heading `Outcome of Trials' there were 44 defendants, 23 convictions, 14 acquittals and 17 others. Those figures are well out of kilter with those of any other State. I ask the Minister whether the figures point to additional resources being given to the Australian Capital Territory? If that is the case, it proves beyond any shadow of doubt that, given the resources, matters can be dealt with in a much better way. The other area to which I would like to refer-the Minister referred to this at Question Time-relates to banking and financial controls. In 1984 the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union made seven recommendations in this area. The Director of Public Prosecutions says that his office participated in a working group set up by the Government to report on the recommendations of the Costigan Royal Commission. The working group presented its report in June 1985. But no action has yet been taken. The Government spent a lot of money in setting up that working party. Although the report was handed down about 18 months ago, no action has been taken. While I understand there is a lack of money and, hence, a lack of resources, I do not understand at all why the report of a working party set up by the Government has been completely ignored. Can the Minister tell us when the Government is going to respond to that report? Is it possible for us to be made aware of any response that has been made in that regard? Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.36) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Once again I enter a protest on behalf of the Opposition about the way in which the Government has presented what is in fact a major statement about the future of Australian commercial television. It has listed this matter as a paper which is to be subject to only five minutes of comment in this chamber rather than bringing it in properly as a ministerial statement and allowing the Senate to debate what in fact amounts to one of the most far-reaching decisions about the future of broadcasting in Australia. We may have the opportunity to discuss this when the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 is before us. However, I once again protest that a major statement which will reshape the whole nature of television broadcasting in Australia has been brought in as a Government paper and put down as No. 6 on the list. Although I might have five minutes to discuss it, most other senators will not have the opportunity to participate in debating something which affects all of our constituents in a major fashion. This in fact is the second chop at this undertaking. The Government some time ago announced a draft indicative plan for the way in which it would go about the so-called aggregation of television services in Australia. That ran into a great deal of difficulty and trouble. As a result, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has revised those plans. The original six aggregated or approved markets which were to be established have been reduced to four. There are very considerable problems with the nature of those four approved markets, in particular the market in Queensland, where the most extraordinary situation has developed. If one reads the description of the approved market in Queensland, one finds that we are to have a three-service market comprising the current service areas of Cairns-Townsville, Mackay, Maryborough, Rockhampton and Toowoomba-Warwick. It goes on: Thus MVQ- that is the Mackay station- would serve Cairns, Townsville and Mackay; SEQ- that is the Maryborough station- would serve Rockhampton, Maryborough, and Darling Downs; RTQ- that is the Rockhampton station- would serve Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, and Rockhampton; DDQ/SDQ- that is the Toowoomba-Warwick station- would serve Maryborough and Darling Downs; and TNQ/FNQ- that is the Cairns-Townsville stations- would serve the whole market. In fact within that one aggregated market there are three sub-markets. Some people will be allowed to broadcast into some areas but will be excluded from others. Some will be allowed to broadcast into all of the areas in that market. There is then the establishment of a weird timetable whereby four approved markets are to be established. In sequence, the first of those is to be established in southern New South Wales in 1989, the second in Queensland in 1990, the third in northern New South Wales in 1991 and the fourth in Victoria in 1992. There is a new regime in place for Tasmania in which the Government is going to lean on the Tasmanian television stations to try to persuade the proprietors to sell one of them. The report at page 5, in dealing with the fact that in Launceston and Hobart the owners are the same, states: The licensee will be invited to consider selling either the Hobart or Launceston licence by a set date to be announced. If that does not happen a new player is to be introduced forcibly into the game. When one looks at some of these arrangements, it is not just a matter of expansion of market services. There are some existing licensees whose market service areas are to be reduced under this proposal. In other words, they are to have their commercial position adversely affected by this aggregation plan. This whole attempt of the Government to reorganise commercial television operations in Australia in a way which will substantially assist what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), Mr Barron and various other Labor tacticians have described as their natural mates and punish their natural enemies in the broadcasting area is something which does deserve a great deal more attention than we are capable of giving it this afternoon. I once again indicate that I do not think that statements of major policy which are introduced in this fashion should be put down as No. 6 on a list of papers, to be given five minutes attention, when in fact they remake the whole method by which commercial television is to be dealt with in Australia. They deserve a far greater and more extensive debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.41) —I would just like to comment on something Senator Puplick has said because in some ways I agree with what he said. In fact this paper that he was so feverishly concerned about was tabled in the House of Representatives without being read and was not even debated. Obviously the concerns over there were not the same as they are here. I do not agree with the way we handle things. I think it would be far more appropriate if we spent much more time on statements and issues of this type than the inordinate amount of time we spend on some of the legislation and other nonsense we debate. As we now have many more senators, and it seems that many of those senators want to speak on lots of issues, we will have to think about this in the future, even though I might not be around to make much of a contribution to that thought, if what the newspapers report is true. I honestly think we do have to consider this. I accept what Senator Puplick said. Of course it is an important issue, and it is important to all of us. A whole lot of things that come in here are important and we ought to have general debate on general issues far more often. As someone who has tried to program this place, as others have, I do not believe we can have that without some considerable co-operation on both sides. We have to get co-operation from some of my ministerial colleagues about getting legislation through in time. We also have to get co-operation from people in this place. When we have relatively minor legislation with perhaps 20 speakers from one side and major matters of importance that hardly get discussed, I think the whole Senate is going to have to sit down and look at how it operates. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.43) —I do not wish at the moment to address this very important statement, `Government Moves to Create New Regional Commercial Television Markets', but I agree with Senator Puplick that it is a statement of major import and it certainly should be on the Notice Paper for consideration. I say to the Manager of Government Business (Senator Grimes) that I do not think it has ever been claimed by the Opposition that the difficulties we have in programming the Senate are unique to this Government; far from it. I do not think I should transgress the Standing Orders by going into the committee meeting last night in any detail, but in fact that very issue was discussed at some length and some renewed efforts will be made on a tripartisan basis to see whether we can come to some better arrangement. The particular complaint Senator Puplick made is one which is not new. I do understand that the Government's general approach is that it will try to avoid statements of this sort being tabled with papers, and I believe that would be to the great advantage of the business of the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —On behalf of the President, pursuant to the provisions of the Audit Act 1901 I present the report of the Auditor-General on financial statements prepared by the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1986, together with the financial statements and certificates of the Auditor-General and the Minister for Foreign Affairs relating to exempt accounts. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit, dated November 1986. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria) —I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee F. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I table the revised explanatory memorandum for the Bill and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes a number of amendments to the Customs and Excise Acts. The principal amendments are at clauses 7 and 13 of the Bill. Clause 7 which was inserted into the Bill during the Committee stages in the other place proposes to close a possible gap in the law by making it clear that it is an offence to bring narcotics into Australia either as a transit passenger or otherwise. Clause 13 proposes to give effect to the Government's decision to introduce revised excise duty rebate arrangements on exports and domestic free market sales of Bass Strait crude oil. These arrangements are being introduced to allow more timely settlement of rebate claims, and thus increase the attractiveness of free market sales to the Bass Strait producers. The Bill contains a number of other amendments of a technical or administrative nature and I will provide brief details of the more important of these in a few moments. The new narcotics offence at clause 7 flows from legal advice indicating doubt as to the adequacy of existing law to ensure successful prosecution of persons who bring drugs into Australia when they are not intended for Australian consumption. As a result of the uncertain state of the law the Government acknowledges that there has been one instance where a person has not been prosecuted. That case involved a person in transit through Australia who allegedly was taking narcotics from India to Canada. We intend however that in future such persons will be amenable to the full force of the law. It is our view that it is quite wrong and indeed contrary to our drug strategy for in transit traffickers or couriers to avoid prosecution when the drugs they are carrying are not intended to be unloaded in Australia. This Government is committed to a positive attack against dealers in this shameful trade, dealers in the ultimate in human misery and degradation and we consider it most undesirable that legal controversy should arise over any law designed to fight the drug menace in Australia. Consistent with other similar offence provisions in the customs Act involving drugs the proposed offence exempts from liability persons who have a reasonable excuse for their conduct. As with other drug offences in the Customs Act the persons seeking to escape liability on the basis of an excuse must establish that excuse on the balance of probabilities. We make no apology for this just as we make no apology for the severity of any other offence involving drugs. The Government issues a firm warning that no person will in future be immune from prosecution in Australia if he or she engages in the distasteful trade in illicit narcotics. The provisions of clause 13 of the Bill form part of the Government's initiatives announced in July this year to stimulate domestic production and encourage exports of crude oil produced from Bass Strait. Since the beginning of 1986 the unsettled international oil market has had a significant and adverse impact on the Australian oil and energy industries. With the downward trend in world oil prices, Bass Strait crude oil production and Australian crude oil exports sourced from these production areas has dropped dramatically. The Government, concerned with the revenue and balance of payments effects of reduced oil production reflected in low domestic free market sales and the gradual cessation of export shipments, announced in July a package of measures to stimulate domestic production and encourage crude oil exports. One of the measures introduced on 1 July 1986, was to reduce the effective top rate of crude oil excise on free market sales of `old' oil by a sliding scale ranging from 65 per cent at $12.50 or less per barrel to 87 per cent at $35.00 or more per barrel. By the end of July however, Australian crude oil prices had fallen to their lowest level since 1979 and this naturally had serious ramifications for the cash flow and financial viability of the Australian oil industry. In order to further encourage the resumption of free market sales the Government also decided that from 1 August 1986 the top marginal excise duty rate for `old' oil would be reduced from 87 per cent to 80 per cent subject to certain review provisions. I should mention that excise duty rebates have been paid on exports of crude oil since 1984. These rebates have been implemented by excise regulations made approximately every 6 months. To provide the necessary market stimulus it is now necessary to introduce a mechanism for the payment of the export rebates and rebates on domestic free market sales on a monthly basis. The Government believes that the most suitable and expedient method to achieve this is to have the Minister for Resources and Energy determine by notification in the Gazette the rebates of excise duty payable on exports and domestic free market sales of Bass Strait crude oil. This should ensure that a monthly settlement of excise duty rebates can be accommodated, thereby increasing the attractiveness of these sales and exports to the Bass Strait producers. The provisions of clause 13 of this Bill provide that similar to regulations the proposed Gazette notices are to be subject to tabling and disallowance by the parliament in the usual way. This mechanism is proposed in order to preserve the parliament's important scrutiny over this administrative tool. As evidence of the timeliness and efficacy of the Government's policy initiatives aimed at increasing production and crude oil exports, there were only ten export shipments in the first half of 1986 and Bass Strait productions averaged only 320,000 barrels a day in the second quarter of 1986. By contrast, since 1 August 1986 nineteen export sales have been completed, valued at about $240 million. More significantly, however, is that Bass Strait production levels are currently running at 480,000 barrels per day and the Bass Strait producers are confident of achieving export sales averaging 70,000 barrels per day in the current financial year. I now turn to the important amendments of a technical or administrative nature contained in the Bill. Clauses 5 and 16 effect minor amendments to the provisions in the customs and excise Acts respectively, relating to the obligations on ship and aircraft owners to provide information relating to ship's or aircraft's stores, including drugs, which are on board on arrival in Australia, or are taken on board while in Australia. The proposed amendments update the administrative requirements for the provisions of this type of information, to facilitate and accommodate the use of modern media to transmit this data. Clause 6 effects a technical amendment to section 151 of the Customs Act, to transfer from the Minister to the Comptroller-General of Customs the power to treat goods as the manufacture of a forum island country, for the purposes of determining duty under the Customs Tariff Act. This transfer of power is consistent with the general transfer of administrative functions from the Minister to the Comptroller-General in Customs Legislation, as implemented by the two Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Acts of 1985 and 1986. The transfer of powers vested the day to day administration of the Customs in the Comptroller-General, and the proposed amendment in clause 6 continues that theme. Other amendments at clauses 11 and 12 are linked to the Government's crude oil and LPG policy. These clauses which were also inserted during the committee stages in the other place are closely related to the proposals at clause 13. Government policy provides that all crude oil production in Australia is subject to excise duty. When production, upon which excise duty is paid, is exported a rebate is payable which amounts to a part of the excise duty paid on production. This policy has been publicised on a number of occasions since exports of crude oil commenced in 1983. Before excise duty can be collected it is necessary that the oil be entered for home consumption. Recent legal advice indicates that current legislation might not support the Government's policy of collecting excise on all crude oil production when some production is exported. The provisions of clauses 11 and 12 clarify the position by requiring that exports must first be entered for home consumption. The provisions of those clauses will not have the effect of introducing a further step in the process or imposing additional regulation upon the industry. They merely deem that production is entered for home consumption on the day it is delivered for exportation and do no more than provide legislative backing for existing practice by both the producers and the Australian Customs Service. There is no increase in excise liability or administration for the producers. The fast track rebate mechanism as proposed by clause 13 in the Bill seeks to encourage exports by speeding up the payment of rebates to the producers. Clauses 11 and 12 will not effect that fast track mechanism. Provision has been made for the amendments in clauses 11 and 12 not to apply to crude oil and LPG production from the area known as Jabiru in the Northern Territory. This is for the reason that Jabiru production is proposed to be removed from excise control under the provisions of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 in accordance with the Government's Resource Rent Tax Policy. Financial Impact Statement The provisions of this Bill have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum 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 Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I table the revised explanatory memorandum for the Bill and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill concerns the future directions of one of Australia's most important resources-and I am not now talking of iron ore, coal, bauxite or uranium, but of the intellectual resources within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, CSIRO. Just how much depends on CSIRO's performance over the next few years is, I believe, not widely enough understood in the community, because Australians still tend to define resources in purely material terms, and rarely relate it to intellect and human capacity. This attitude contrasts markedly with attitudes in countries such as Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, Sweden and Israel, to mention countries with populations smaller than our own, where human skills are invariably recognised as being of paramount importance. Australia has no option but to develop similar attitudes if it is to survive economically for the remainder of this century. Australian business management, in particular, will have to change direction radically, and devote a far greater degree of attention to human skills than it has in the past. This will inevitably mean making use of CSIRO, because CSIRO is the single greatest reservoir of technological skills and knowledge this nation possesses. In most other Western nations, government-funded research and development is paralleled by a strong private research and development capacity, but the Australian private sector, outside agriculture and mining, has for decades all but ignored the need for research and development, with the result that Government has been left to shoulder the task of fostering scientific talent and expertise. In examining the future of CSIRO, the Government was conscious that it would be setting the directions and structure for the Organisation for some years to come. Furthermore, CSIRO's role in performing longer-term, strategic research means that it is necessary to consider Australia's future, to ask where we as a nation are headed, when setting the context for decisions on CSIRO's future. There has been a profound change in perception over the last year or so of Australia's place in the world. In 1984-85 there was a prevailing euphoria about the State of Australia's economy. After all, it was reasoned, if we had the world's strongest economy and the world's highest growth rate, then structural improvements in the economy hardly seemed necessary. Concern about the inadequacy of Australia's scientific and technological base was not popular in 1983 and 1984. Underlying the Government's decision on future directions for CSIRO was a belief that Australia must develop as a nation that makes much greater use of its intellectual resources. If we are to arrest the relative decline in Australia's standard of living, Australia must become a more intellectually active scientific and technological culture. However, simple adoption of technology from overseas at a greater rate, or more effectively, will not create the required environment in Australia for acceptance and development of new technologies. A strong local capability in research and development, directed to the opportunities of the future, not the past, is essential. This will be the fundamental role of the restructured CSIRO resulting from the Amendment Bill before the House today. To provide context for the future directions which the Government has identified for CSIRO, I would like to look briefly at our past. By 1900 Australia was a world leader in technology and its per capita income was the highest in the world, followed by Argentina. Our prosperity was based on our agricultural output and our natural resource endowment. Technological developments spurred by the need to be competitive, were responsible for our pre- eminence in the world economy of the time. However, we have not used our initial success as a springboard to industrial growth. Instead, we have relied on our efficient agricultural and mining industries while our manufacturing and other industries remained poorly developed. Agriculture and mining, employing just 7 per cent of our labour force, account for more than 80 per cent of out export earnings, if we include the value of secondary processing. This is not a sign of strength, as the fastest-growing sector in world trade has been in high value-added, brain based goods for about 15 years. Theoretically, that 80 per cent plus figure could increase to 100 per cent as some farming and mining groups have urged. If it did, this would be a catastrophe, putting us at the mercy of declining world commodity prices, providing a disincentive to restructuring and updating our economic and technological base. Our urban society would be a mere appendage to the rural and mining base. Australia produces large volumes of raw materials, high bulk, low-added-value goods, at a time when alternative suppliers are coming on stream, and where traditional markets are either becoming self-sufficient or are adopting trade policies which are adverse to us. In the fastest growing areas of world trade-low bulk, high-value-added, brain based or brand-name goods, we are very small producers, having left our run extremely late. In technology-based goods, of the 24 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations, Australia ranked 23rd in 1984 in the imbalance between the value of imports and exports. Only Iceland had worse figures. There are serious, long term and-in my view-irreversible problems in agriculture, complicated locally by drought, but also by our national preoccupation with the short term, and failure to grasp long term trends. The most productive year in the history of world agriculture was 1985, with outputs 12 per cent higher than ever before. A green revolution has swept Asia in the past 15 years. China is now self-sufficient in grain. India now has a grain surplus of 35 million tonnes, locked away in silos. Indonesia, for the first time in many years, is now a grain exporter. Britain, still a major farming nation, has had unusually good harvests. The minerals situation is similar. The overheated minerals boom, that began in the 1960s and continued through the early 1980s, was based on heroic assumptions of a continuing world-wide growth in demand for base metals we could produce in large volume and with steadily rising prices. These assumptions have not been fulfilled. Other sources of supply-notably Brazil-are now selling at a lower cost, while the technological revolution has brought an era of parsimony in the use of natural resources. The latest preoccupation of Australian politics and the media-the emergence of the so-called New Right-is a relatively insignificant part of a much greater problem. In passing I must comment that a leading member of the New Right, as late as 1979, was positively advocating a reduction in Australia's manufacturing capability and exports in order that our dollar would not be upvalued too much by the large forecast increase in mineral exports and capital inflow to the minerals industry. The strategies of most other western nations during the 1950s and 1960s were quite different from our own. The companies of Japan, Europe and the United States of America, attracted by the economic growth prospects of most economies, spread out across the world opening up new markets with new products and processes. This competition spurred heavy research and development investment, innovation, product and overseas market development, yielding handsome returns and an economic resilience which allowed them to survive the economic recession of the 1980s better than most. The major factor in the rise of resource-poor nations has been the proportion of export earnings directly attributable to intellectual input: invention, research and development, product innovation, design, patents, royalties and copyright. More than 60 per cent of the annual export earnings of Japan, France, Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy depend on `brain-based' industries, while Australia's figure is probably less than 5 per cent. The skill-based earnings of our industrial contemporaries will grow. Ours will contract unless we make a fundamental change in direction. The most important political issue we face is how to bring Australia up to date, how to come to grips with the social and political significance of the technological revolution that has swept the Western world in the past 25 years. Australia missed the bus on being an active participant in that revolution, and is now paying the price for its low level of intellectual vitality and for remaining in the mental world of the 1960s. We still have to learn the lesson that the world does not owe us a living. It is dangerous for us to conclude that all other nations are out of step and they must learn to march with us. What Australia must do is also what CSIRO must do. CSIRO has made enormous contributions towards the success of our agriculture and minerals industries. I believe CSIRO's most important role over the coming years will be to work with those industries in which research and development plays a central role. In particular, CSIRO will play a major role in contributing to the Government's program of restructuring and revitalising high-technology manufacturing, and in supporting the emerging information and space technology industries. The scientific work of CSIRO will, of course, continue to benefit the resource based primary industries, particularly by adding value to products before they leave our shores, and by tailoring them to meet specific overseas market needs. The present level of private sector industrial research and development in Australia must be increased. This is the most critical factor in achieving a more internationally competitive and skill-based industrial capability in Australia. CSIRO will have an important supportive role in achieving this goal. Over the past few years, CSIRO has substantially improved its interactions with manufacturing industry. The trend started in 1980, with the establishment of the new Division of Manufacturing Technology. The number of professional staff engaged in manufacturing-oriented research has grown by nearly 100 since 1981, an increase of some 15 per cent. Research in manufacturing now accounts for 27 per cent of professional staff. Growth in the manufacturing effort is a trend I expect to continue, and work for the information industries is also growing rapidly. CSIRO's international standing as a research establishment is beyond dispute. It is certainly higher than its national standing, at least in some sectors. Ironically, the Bell Laboratories, world leaders in communications technology, have a higher opinion of CSIRO's research capacity than the local competitory AWA. CSIRO has collaborated with industry in the development of many products which are being exported, or are about to be. These range from the high-speed vision processor, a major advance in the field of robotic vision, to the extremely strong ceramic called `partially stabilised zirconia', which has a wide range of potential applications. The Government is looking to CSIRO to play a role in assisting industry to a much greater export orientation, as well as to continue support for our more traditional industries. This is vital to Australia's future prosperity. It is precisely because the Government places great store by CSIRO and has great expectations of it that we are introducing this new legislation aimed at carrying the Organisation into the next decade in the best possible shape. In May 1985 the Government requested the Australian Science and Technology Council to conduct a total review of public investment in research and development. ASTEC published its report `Future Directions for CSIRO' in November, and the Minister for Science announced in June that the Government had accepted the broad thrust of the ASTEC recommendations. This legislation is based in part on those recommendations, and provides for CSIRO to be maintained as a single entity, in order to achieve maximum efficiency and flexibility in responding to changing national research priorities. The Government considers that CSIRO's primary role should continue to be applications-oriented research in support of major industry sectors and selected areas of community interest, with a commitment to the effective transfer of its results to users. To help CSIRO place more emphasis on the application of its research, the Organisation is being encouraged to take on more short-term problem solving projects, to be paid for largely by the individual companies concerned. An important objective of this is to gain a better knowledge of industries' needs, and to foster mutual respect and confidence. It is not intended that CSIRO substitute for industry performing its own research and development, but rather that it back up and stimulate industry to do more for itself. The major emphasis for CSIRO with its own funds will remain, where it should, on contributing to future industrial development by longer-term `strategic' research. The Government will give clear guidance to CSIRO about Government policies and priorities. The Minister for Science will issue guidelines to CSIRO from time to time setting out policies and priorities which the Government wishes CSIRO to follow. In addition, CSIRO will continue to prepare three to five year strategic plans, which will be submitted to the Minister, and annual operating plans. The Minister will retain a statutory power of direction. Changing the top structure will be an important element in building closer links between CSIRO and industry and the community. The legislation clearly separates the top-level policy body-the Board-from management functions. The former Executive will be replaced by a Board having a part-time non-executive Chairman and six to eight part-time members appointed for their personal abilities, not as representatives of sectional interests. The Chief Executive will be the only full-time member of the Board. The Board will be responsible for setting the broad policy directions within the general policy context established by the Government. The Board members, including the Chief Executive, will be appointed by the Governor-General in Council for a maximum period of five years, but will be eligible for reappointment. The Chief Executive, who will be the most senior member of the Organisation, will have responsibility for the management of the activities of CSIRO within the directions established by the Board. The Government has decided that CSIRO should be able to retain its earnings from outside sources without this leading to a decrease in appropriation. Although future levels of funding will continue to be determined in the annual Budget context, this decision should provide a major incentive to CSIRO to strengthen its links with industry, and the application orientation of its research. Although the Advisory Council and State and Territory Committees have provided valuable advice and direction to the Executive, it is clear that the structure has not been ideal. The Government has therefore decided to repeal that section of the Science and Industry Research Act which establishes these bodies, and to empower the incoming Board to set up non-statutory channels of advice from industry and the community. Representations from the outlying States of Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania have all expressed concern at this provision, but the special needs of these areas outside the Sydney-Melbourne axis are recognised and I am confident that the proposed non-statutory channels of advice will give appropriate and effective State representation. The Government is also proposing to establish a House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Technology, which I believe will be a major step in improving CSIRO's interaction with and responsiveness to Parliament. The present CSIRO Consultative Council, which comprises staff and management representatives, will be retained to provide an effective forum for the representation of staff views within the management structure. The ASTEC report on CSIRO raised a number of other important issues concerning use of resources, conditions of service for research staff, funding and financial arrangements. ASTEC's recommendations on these matters will be subject to consideration, in the first instance, by the incoming board, and subsequently by me in consultation with other Ministers as appropriate. The Bill also provides that the Chief Executive should administer the Science and Industry Endowment Fund, a fund used to support scientific endeavours which do not have access to mainstream funding. The changes to CSIRO embodied in the new legislation are complementary to other initiatives introduced by the Government aimed at transforming the research and development climate in Australia. These initiatives include the Grants for Industry Research and Development Scheme, the 150 per cent taxation concession, the National Industry Extension Service and revised offsets arrangements. The legislation also incorporates and formalises a number of changes that were under way within CSIRO at the time of the ASTEC review, particularly the five-year strategy for development aimed at improving the focus, management and use of the Organisation's research. I am very optimistic about CSIRO's future. This legislation will give impetus to the positive changes that have already taken place within the Organisation, and will also reflect the Government's desire to enhance CSIRO's responsiveness to community needs. I commend the Bill to the Senate and I present the explanatory memorandum 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 Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to implement a Government decision that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service should be amalgamated from 1 January 1987. Honourable senators will be aware that the decision to amalgamate the two broadcasting organisations was announced by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech. Accordingly, the Government sees the amalgamation as a Budget-related matter. Before dealing with the provisions of the Bill, I would wish to make some general points in respect of the objective to be achieved by this legislation. The decision to amalgamate the two broadcasting organisations was taken in the context of a difficult Budget and the conclusion that this country could no longer continue to afford to support two separately Budget-funded national broadcasting organisations. Nowhere else in the world are there two separate government supported national broadcasters and, indeed, there is widespread recognition of increasing difficulty in meeting the costs of such organisations totally from government budgets. The Government expects that there will be appreciable cost savings in the long term, and has in fact identified the objective of achieving some savings to the Budget in 1986-87. Having taken the decision to amalgamate the two organisations, the Government will ensure that it is done in a manner which will retain the strengths of the two existing organisations and combine them in a way which will serve to enhance the services provided through the National Broadcasting Service. In considering the legislation necessary to implement the amalgamation, the Government took advice from a steering committee chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Communications and chief executives of the ABC and SBS. The provisions outlined in the Bill are essentially those which have come to the Government from the steering committee. One of the threshold questions was whether to establish the amalgamated organisation under a totally new structure under a new Act. In the end result, the Government accepted the recommendation of the steering committee that the objective of an efficient and cost-effective amalgamation would best be achieved by seeking to amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act. Accordingly, the Bill seeks to reflect a broader responsibility of the ABC to cover the functions and responsibilities previously undertaken by the Special Broadcasting Service. I would wish to stress the Government's intention that there should be an amalgamation of the two organisations in the full sense of that word. From 1 January 1987 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will not only continue its previously established services, but will ensure continuation of a multicultural television service in those cities served by the SBS and an ethnic radio service in both Sydney and Melbourne through stations 2EA and 3EA. The amendments contained in the Bill will not add to the costs or revenues of the Commonwealth. It is expected that, in the long term, financial savings will accrue from the amalgamation. Such savings should occur in areas relating to rationalisation of accommodation, reduced overheads and economies in areas of program production and acquisition. Budget savings for the 1986-87 financial year have been estimated as $2 million. The Bill provides for the amendment of The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983. It also includes consequential amendments to the Broadcasting Act 1942, by omitting of the provisions under which the special broadcasting service is constituted, and to other acts which make reference to the special broadcasting service. A New Charter The responsibilities of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as a national broadcaster are embodied in the charter of the corporation. Honourable senators will be aware that the charter adopted for the corporation in 1983 reflected recommendations arising from a comprehensive inquiry into broadcasting undertaken by a committee chaired by Mr Alex Dix. Whilst the present charter includes a recognition by the corporation of the multicultural character of the Australian community, the Government believes that its objectives for the continuation by the corporation of services currently provided by the special broadcasting service should be reflected in the strengthening of some aspects of the charter. The strengthening of the charter is to achieve several purposes. Firstly, the government recognises that ethnic radio and multicultural television add a unique element to the Australian broadcasting system. They constitute a recognition of the diversity of the Australian population, and provide practical as well as less tangible benefits to their audiences, such as information on services, educational programming and cultural and linguistic maintenance as well as other assistance. This is of particular importance to many people of non-English speaking background who may rely on these services as the only media accessible to them and in some cases, for example, some new settlers and ethnic aged, their only contact with a community speaking their language or with the broader society. Educational programming has been an important ongoing responsibility of the ABC. In the same way the SBS has provided valuable educational programs for new settlers, including in helping them to learn English. Having regard to these valuable elements in the provision of multicultural broadcasting, the Bill includes amendments to the ABC charter which will require the ABC to: Provide multilingual radio and television programs; Recognise the need to encourage people whose first language is not English to participate in the political, economic social and cultural life of Australia; Take account of the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and persons of diverse cultural backgrounds; Cater for people from non-English speaking backgrounds when providing educational programs, particularly in facilitating the learning of English; and Take into account Australia's cultural diversity when encouraging and promoting the musical, dramatic and other performing arts. Consultative Arrangements Another feature of the legislation which established the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, was that there should be comprehensive arrangements for community consultation and advice to the Board of the Corporation on matters relating to broadcasting programs and television programs. Accordingly, provision was made to establish an advisory council known as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council. Provision was also made for the Board of the Corporation to establish advisory councils in relation to any State or to any Territory or in relation to any region of Australia. In the context of the amalgamation of the two broadcasting organisations, arrangements for consultation will be an important factor in ensuring that the services meet the requirements of the charter and the Government's intentions. The Government considers it essential therefore to ensure the participation in such advisory arrangements by representatives of the broad spectrum of the Australian community, including those who would seek to represent ethnic community interests. Accordingly, the Bill includes a requirement for the Board to recognise the diverse cultural background of the population and to ensure, as far as practicable, that membership of its advisory councils reflects a broad representation of the Australian community, including persons of non-English speaking backgrounds. I should add that this provision does not preclude the establishment by the Corporation of more specific consultation arrangements where such a need is recognised. For example, I understand that special consultation arrangements have been established in ethnic radio by the SBS to assist its determination of programming directions. I would expect that these sorts of ad hoc arrangements will continue as a means of recognising community interests in specific areas. Structure of the Board The broad oversight of policies and operations of both the ABC and the SBS are currently vested in statutorily appointed Boards. The effect of the amalgamation will be to place the responsibility for those functions currently undertaken by the SBS to come within the responsibility of the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The Government takes the view that this substantial change would best be reflected by establishing a new Board. Accordingly, the Bill provides for a Board comprising a Managing Director, a staff-elected Director and up to ten non-Executive Directors. This will result in a Board slightly larger than the current Board of the ABC. It will also enable the membership of the Board to be strengthened to enable it to carry out the wider responsibilities it will assume in relation to ethnic broadcasting under the new structure. A further provision in the Bill will cause the appointments of all non-Executive Directors, that is those Directors other than the Managing Director, to cease to hold office on the day of amalgamation. New appointments will thus be necessary to form a new Board from 1 January 1987. I have mentioned that the Board also will continue to include an office of staff-elected Director. In establishing the Corporation in 1983, this Government took the step of ensuring that the interests of staff of the Corporation should be represented on the Board. Such a position was unique in Commonwealth legislation, but recognised the special nature of a body such as the ABC which relies so heavily on the creativity and participation of its staff in achieving its objectives. It is important to note, however, that the occupant of such a position needs to be seen by all staff as representing their interests. Accordingly, in amalgamating two organisations, the Government believes the opportunity should be provided for all the staff of the organisations to have a say in selecting their representative. The Bill includes, therefore, a provision that a new election is to be conducted as soon as practicable after amalgamation to allow a truly representative staff-elected director to join the new board. To ensure the continuity of representation of staff interests, the Bill provides for the presently identified staff-elected director to remain until a new election is conducted. The Bill also provides for some consequential amendments to reflect the new board structure. Such matters as quorum levels and provisions for convening of meetings are to be amended by the Bill to reflect the larger board. Inquiry into Multicultural Broadcasting In 1984 the government established a committee of review of the Special Broadcasting Service. That committee, chaired by the Honourable Xavier Connor, QC., provided a detailed report to the government and proposed a considerable number of recommendations as to the future form and operation of the special broadcasting service. Whilst the government has now decided to take a different course to that recommended by the committee as regards structural arrangements, it is important to note that very many of the recommendations put forward by the Connor committee are being reflected in the operations of the special broadcasting service and are proposed to be adopted by the ABC as an integral part of the amalgamation. For example, one of the recommendations of the inquiry was to strengthen the relationship between the then SBS and those services provided by public broadcasting stations. In recent years the special broadcasting service has established comprehensive co-operative arrangements with public broadcasters for provision of programming and news material to public broadcasting stations around Australia. The Bill includes a specific provision for the corporation to have regard to services provided by holders of public radio licences or public television licences, and establishes a principle that the corporation may provide programs and services to such public licensees. The government is committed to retaining and encouraging the continued development of this relationship with public broadcasters. Another related recommendation of the Connor inquiry accepted by the government was for the organisation to develop a specific program package for distribution to public broadcasting stations. It was suggested that such a package should consist of national and international news, homeland bulletins, public affairs, settlement and other information, as well as programs in various languages, including English. It was suggested also that such material might be produced by a specialist program packaging unit within the broadcasting organisation. The government continues to support such a proposition and will refer the specific recommendation to the new board of the ABC to consider in the context of its new charter and responsibilities. At the time of its decision to amalgamate the two organisations, the government had referred some 160 recommendations of the Connor report to the special broadcasting service for decision. Many of those have already been adopted. Notwithstanding the amalgamation decision, the government considers many of those original recommendations to still be appropriate and commendable. Accordingly, the new board of the amalgamated organisation will be asked to consider implementation of a range of those recommendations and to report to the government on progress. Annual Reporting The Government is conscious of the concerns expressed by ethnic community representatives that the ABC has not, in the past, given sufficient consideration to ethnic community needs. There are, of course, a number of protections in the Bill to stress the responsibility of the ABC to meet these needs. As a further measure, however, the Bill provides that the ABC is required to specifically include in its annual report to the Parliament, particulars of programs in languages other than English and programs contributing to the development of a multicultural society which it has broadcast or televised during the year to which the report relates. By this means the performance of the organisation in respect of its new responsibilities will be clearly and demonstrably available for public scrutiny. Transfer of Staff An important provision of this Bill is for the movement of staff from the SBS to the ABC. It also reflects the requirement to provide protections for the interests of those staff. The Bill provides that all staff who are, immediately before the amalgamation day, employed by the special broadcasting service, will become either officers or employees respectively of the ABC, depending on their status at the time of amalgamation. The Bill also provides a mechanism for ensuring that terms and conditions of employment of persons who are transferred to the ABC under these provisions are the same as those applying to them before amalgamation. There are, of course, specific provisions under the Public Service Act which offer further protections to staff who, until the amalgamation, have been covered by the Public Service Act. It is expected that the process of integrating the staff of the two organisations will take some time to complete after the amalgamation, but, in this process, there will be full consultation between management, staff and unions. I should also add that the SBS has been working for some time to achieve a permanent staffing structure for broadcasters and co-ordinators who work in radio stations 2EA and 3EA. I am pleased to say that those agreements which had been reached on a structure will carry over to the new organisation. Having dealt with the specific provisions of the Bill, I want to repeat to the Senate that the Government is committed to achieving a true amalgamation of the two organisations. It is not, as some would wish to suggest, simply absorbing the SBS into the existing operations of the ABC. I had indicated earlier that co-ordination arrangements have been established between the Department of Communications, the ABC and the SBS. In pursuance of those arrangements, agreement has already been reached on a new organisation structure to apply after the amalgamation. Under these arrangements, I understand that radio stations 2EA in Sydney and 3EA in Melbourne will be formed into a new division. With regard to television, the chairman of the ABC has already announced the intention to continue in a clearly separate and identifiable way the television services presently provided by the SBS in parallel with ABC services. SBS television will become known as ABC-1, whereas the existing ABC television services will be known as ABC-2. The organisational arrangements I have mentioned will ensure the continued separate identity of these services within the ABC. The adoption by the new organisation of these arrangements should also enable the range and type of services that have been available until now from the SBS to be continued. Within these specific and separately identifiable elements the organisation will continue to provide multilingual news services on radio and be able to provide multilingual television news services. Indeed, there is a specific provision in the Bill to ensure the continuation of these services. Much has been said recently in discussing the pros and cons of amalgamating the two organisations, of the innovative approaches of the SBS in commissioning its programs and in its use of independent producers. Far from constraining such innovative practices, I believe that the amalgamation of the two organisations will promote more efficient and effective arrangements in the new national broadcaster. In addition to economies which will arise from sharing of facilities and accommodation, there will be much greater opportunity for joint purchasing and production of programming and greater complementarity between the services provided. This should ensure, not only the continuation of multicultural programming and services to traditional audiences of the SBS, but allow some proportion of such services to be available to a much wider audience through the extensive ABC network. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(3.50) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) Government Business take precedence of General Business on Thursdays. (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. I am aware of the fact that Senator Chaney proposes to move that we do not sit from 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on Thursday night. I will not oppose that amendment. I think I was feeling a bit grouchy when I put that into the motion. I apologise to the Senate for doing so. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.50) —I move: That the words `8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.' be omitted from paragraph (2) (b) of the motion moved by Senator Grimes. Senator Grimes should regard that as a mere hiccup in the proceedings this afternoon. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Consideration resumed from 17 November. GROUP B Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $173,793,000. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.51) —In the report of Estimates Committee B it was pointed out that the Committee was very concerned that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was acting in breach of legislation. The Committee drew this fact to the attention of the Senate. It was pointed out that the number of freedom of information requests during the year was 1,554-an increase of 6 per cent over the previous year. During the year 1,150 requests were resolved of which 42 per cent were resolved within the required 45-day limit. We were concerned that 58 per cent of the requests remained unresolved in the required 45 days. What will the Department do about the fact that it is acting in breach of the legislation laid down by this Parliament? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.52) —I understand the concern of members of the Senate committee about this matter. The Department stated, I think at the time, that this was due to staffing problems. The Department has made an application for more staff in the Forward Estimates. At the moment, as is not unusual, there is disagreement about what the level of that staff should be but the Department, by acquiring, I hope, and using more resources intends to rectify that situation. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.53) —The Minister indicated that the Department is applying for additional staff. He also indicated that there appears to be a disagreement about the number of staff the Government thinks necessary and what the Department thinks necessary. The fact remains that the Department is acting in breach of legislation that this Parliament has laid down. I ask the Minister: Is it government policy that its departments abide by the legislation of the Parliament? If so, what will be done by the Government to rectify the situation? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.53) —I am sorry that I did not clarify that. The Department is aware that in not getting the problems resolved within 45 days in that number of cases it is in breach of the legislation. The Department believes that to overcome that it needs more resources. At the moment discussions are going on between the Department and not so much the Government as the Department of Finance as to what level those resources should be. One way or another, the Department is determined that it will overcome that situation. On the one hand we have the Department of Finance ever vigilant about the number of staff and on the other hand we have the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs believing that it needs more staff. Between those two the matter will be sorted out. It is certainly the Government's policy to see that this is carried out. I can only say that the Government is determined that this will happen. I gather that in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs there are a whole lot of frivolous freedom of information requests. Therefore, the Government and the Department are determined that this will be carried out. The Department of Finance and the Public Service Board ever vigilant are determined that it will be carried out in the most economical way. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.55) —I wonder whether Senator Grimes has had a chance to get any answers to the questions which I asked last night, specifically about Mr Fardsavar, Dr Hempel and Mr Etheredge. While the Minister is looking for such answers I would like to know whether there is any subsequent information about the temporary staff situation which I raised during last night's debate. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.56) —As it happens, and to my surprise, I have some information about Mr Majid Fardsavar. I make the comment again to the honourable senator, with all sincerity and perhaps a little less acerbically than I did last night, that I believe that it is wrong, it is silly and it will destroy the Estimates system if honourable senators take advantage of the timing of the Estimates committees to bring up individual cases such as this which at any other time of the year would be brought up in the normal way by approaching the Minister and the Department. One of the problems that we have in the Estimates system, which is not working well, is that we sit all night answering these sorts of questions when every one of us who has a question like this through the year takes it up with the Minister and manages to cope with it perfectly well. When the Estimates committees come up people want to bring up individual cases. But I will answer the individual case. Mr Fardsavar arrived on 25 June 1985 as a visitor. His stay was authorised until 17 November 1985. He married an Australian citizen on 18 September 1985 and obtained forms for permanent residency but did not apply for it. On 20 February 1986 a delegate considered his circumstances-his marriage by then had broken down-and ordered his deportation. He applied for refugee status on 24 February 1986. In fact, in September 1985 he had married an Australian citizen and had obtained forms to apply for permanent residency but did not do so. Suddenly, in February 1986 he wanted refugee status. A solicitor advised that `he had applied to prevent the deportation order taking effect'. The unanimous decision of the Committee on the Determination of Refugee Status recommended that he not be recognised as a refugee and this was accepted by the Minister's delegate on 29 April 1986. His passport was renewed by the Iranian Embassy in May 1986. His plan to obtain entry to the Philippines and from there to seek settlement in the United States was apparently approached but not pursued. On 3 October 1986 Mr Justice Forster of the Federal Court dismissed an application for a review of the decisions to refuse him refugee status and to deport him. He noted that Mr Fardsavar stated that he `had done nothing in Iran that would prevent him from returning'. On 10 October the delegate from the Minister considered representations by his solicitor but decided that the deportation order should stand. On 17 October the solicitor advised the Department that Canada had refused him a visa. On 20 October the Minister indicated that he was not prepared to vary the deportation decision. On 23 October the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees sought a review of the decision of the Committee on the Determination of Refugee Status and this was denied. The United States has declined to accept him. Discussions are proceeding between the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Canada and other countries. On 3 November his case was discussed with Iranian officials who indicated that he was not of interest to them. On 3 November again, Mr Justice Toohey heard a further application for a stay of deportation. The hearing was adjourned until 6 November 1986 at 2.15 p.m. and a stay was granted until then. The judge felt that it was appropriate to adjourn until a time when the parties would be fully prepared and could argue the case more fully. The honourable senator obviously has other information which the Department and I do not have. I have given all the details I am able to give. As to the questions the honourable senator asked last night on average staffing levels, I do not have anything to add. The best thing I can do is to get a representative of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs or a representative of the Department of Finance, or both, to go to Senator Vigor's office and explain the system of average staffing levels and how staffing levels can be above the average level sometimes and below the average level at other times so that the average works out to what has been determined. Having left this place at 11 o'clock last night, I have not overnight sought further information on the matter. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Social Security Proposed expenditure, $573,693,000. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.01) —Information supplied by the Australian Public Service Board has put the number of clerical administrative staff in the Department of Social Security who had been acting in higher positions for at least 12 months as at 14 September 1984 at 3,285. This long term higher duties figure dropped to 2,830 as at 2 September 1985. The number of clerical assistant staff who had been on higher duties for at least 12 months was 1,372 in September 1984 and 1,150 in September 1985. For keyboard staff the respective figures were 193 and 130. So an improvement is occurring. Still, over 4,000 DSS staff had been on higher duties for over 12 months as at September 1985. That is nearly one staff member in every four. This must create quite a few problems in terms of getting everything done in the Department that needs to be done. I would like the Minister's assessment of the effects on the Department of this higher duties phenomenon. What is going to be done to get these long term numbers down to less alarming levels? This Department is particularly notable in this regard. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.03) —I can understand Senator Vigor's frustration with this area. When I was Minister for Social Security I was similarly frustrated by the number of people on higher duties. But the situation has obviously improved considerably since I was the Minister. The problem in the Public Service system is that, for instance, if a vacancy occurs at level 3 it has a ripple effect right down the Department as someone acts in the vacant position while it is being filled. The present reforms designed to streamline the Public Service are aimed, amongst other things, at avoiding this system. However, I have no exact details of the situation in the Department of Social Security now. I will seek a more detailed comment from my colleague the Minister for Social Security in another place and get it to the honourable senator as soon as possible. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.04) —The Minister will remember that I asked him a few questions during the debate on the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Does he want me to repeat the questions or could he answer them now? They are in regard to resources, in particular. Would the Minister turn to page 20 of the report? Senator Grimes —I do not have the report with me. Senator WALTERS —Could I lend it to the Minister? I believe that it is a very serious matter. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.04) —I put it to Senator Walters that it is purely coincidental that the report by the Director of Public Prosecutions came down today, the day of Committee debate on the Estimates. I say what I said to Senator Vigor. I am very happy to answer questions on notice, or without notice during Question Time, on this matter as I did today. But I have not prepared a detailed response to the report by the Director of Public Prosecutions. All I know is this: Since we have been in government we have increased, from memory, the staff of the Australian Federal Police by some 500, partly to overcome this problem. In the Department of Social Security we have introduced mechanisms such as requiring people to register at the Commonwealth Employment Service before they get unemployment benefit-a provision which, I remind honourable senators, was removed by the previous Liberal Government and has now been reinstated by the Labor Government. We have also continued the efforts of the previous Minister for Social Security to introduce a much more improved and modern computer system within the Department of Social Security. We have tightened up the guidelines and instruction manuals to ensure that all cases where misrepresentation has been made are investigated. The serious cases go to the Australian Federal Police. The less serious and less complicated cases that will not come to prosecution are dealt with by the Department of Social Security. There has been a considerable increase-I cannot remember the exact percentage but I will obtain it for the honourable senator-in the number of people who have been successfully prosecuted in the area of the Department of Social Security. I do not think, any more than the Minister who preceded me thought, or as I thought as Minister for Social Security, that the situation is completely satisfactory. That is one of the reasons we want to introduce an identity card, the Australia Card. From my quick reading of the report by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Federal Police need far more resources. They are getting more resources. They have received more resources. But there are limitations on that. Secondly, the DPP refers to the lack of quality of the briefs he receives from the Department. The Minister for Social Security is concerned about that and has approached the DPP. He will be acting on any suggestions that the Director of Public Prosecutions makes. Of course people have to be concerned about this area. But I wish people would be as relatively concerned about the even greater volume of money that is retained through tax evasion in this country. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.07) —I agree entirely with the Minister but we are not debating tax now. We are debating social security. The Minister says that he would act in any way possible to remedy the situation. That is why I draw to his attention the great disparity between the number of cases in the Australian Capital Territory and the number of cases in my home State. The population in the Australian Capital Territory is, I suppose, almost half the population of my State. Yet there are 97 defendants in the Australian Capital Territory versus three in Tasmania. There are 53 pleas of guilty in the Australian Capital Territory versus one in Tasmania. There are 40 trials in the Australian Capital Territory versus two in Tasmania. The number of defendants in the Australian Capital Territory-this is the outcome of trials-is 44 versus two in Tasmania. The number of convictions in the Australian Capital Territory is 23 versus one in Tasmania. The number of acquittals is 14 in the Australian Capital Territory versus one in Tasmania. As far as other cases are concerned, there are seven in the Australian Capital Territory versus none in Tasmania. We can draw two conclusions from that. I would like to draw the first conclusion, which is that Tasmanians are far more honest than most people in the Australian Capital Territory. But I do not draw that conclusion. I draw the conclusion that possibly greater resources are given to the Australian Capital Territory in this area than are given in my home State. I am interested to hear the Minister's comment on this matter because if this is the case no table could underline the need for a remedy greater than the figures I have cited. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.09) —I, like Senator Walters, would like to think that the Tasmanian situation was due to the greater honesty of Tasmanians. It is certainly partly due to the greater stability of the Tasmanian population. The Tasmanian population is a much less transient population. There are fewer what are called `risk beneficiaries' in Tasmania, although I believe that does not explain the whole difference. I will certainly seek an explanation for the whole difference. Part of that difference may be due to the different distribution of resources. The Australian Federal Police are not employed just to deal with social security fraud. They are employed to deal with other matters. It would be better for me to check with the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who is responsible for the Federal Police, to obtain a more detailed response to Senator Walters. Part of the difference-I am sure that it is only part of it-is due to the fact that there are fewer transient groups, fewer groups at risk who are likely to get up to activities that would be drawn to the attention of the Federal Police. I cannot give any exact information on that this afternoon. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.11) —I thank the Minister. I turn to another area of the report, concerning banking and financial controls, as I did when I was speaking to it earlier. This is an area in which the Minister, as he says, is more interested. The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union came down with seven recommendations in 1984. The Director of Public Prosecutions took part in a working party set up by the Government to report on the recommendations of the Costigan Commission and presented its report in June 1985. The report says that no action has yet been taken-nearly 18 months later. Can the Minister let me know when the Government will consider the report, if it has not already done so? If it has already done so, can the Government let us know what was the consideration of that report and whether any of the report's recommendations will be taken up, because the Minister said that he will always act as the Director of Public Prosecutions suggests. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.12) —I would like to demonstrate how placid I am in my old age because this has absolutely nothing to do with Estimates Committee B or the Department of Social Security. It is a matter for the Department of the Treasury. This matter is being considered by the Government. I hope that a report on the recommendations, as part of the general and continuing review of banking by the Treasury, will be before the Cabinet soon. I will certainly find out details of when that will be. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.13) —Mr Chairman, as you will be aware, in dealing with other departments I have been discussing various matters relating to the health or otherwise of members of the Australian Public Service. Today I want to deal with another aspect of this matter, its impact on the Department of Social Security. During the Senate Estimates inquiries it became evident that the cost of workers compensation in the Department of Social Security increased from $3.3m in 1984-85 to over $6m in 1985-86. That is about an 86 per cent increase which surely requires some explanation. Certainly, when I read the Hansard record of the Estimates Committee hearing it appeared to me that I did not get a reasonable explanation for that. I would be grateful if one could be given here. The other point worth noting in regard to the extraordinary costs emerging within the Public Service, costs which certainly need the closest attention and far closer attention than the Government has so far given them, is that they relate to sick leave in this case. The estimated cost of sick leave in 1986-87 is $10.16m. In abstract, that figure may be very meaningless except that it compares with an estimated cost of normal annual leave in 1986-87 of $28.7m which includes, of course, $4m for leave loading. That means there is a cost of $10m for sick leave against $28m or $29m for normal annual leave. If we take off the $4m for leave loading something like $24m is paid in annual leave costs. This is an extraordinary figure. It suggests a very large amount of sick leave in this Department. Obviously something must be wrong with the working environment. Who knows what it is? Not only is there the remarkable cost of sick leave and an enormous increase in workers compensation but also it is obviously a very fecund department because the estimated cost of maternity leave is $5.5m, which is about half the cost of sick leave. Special leave amounts to about $2.9m and the estimated cost of long service leave is $7.2m. I raise these matters because the specific figures for specific departments require the very closest attention. They suggest some curious relationships. I just mention in this context that this is another department with what appears to be an excessive invalidity retirement ratio-58 people retired through invalidity last year compared with only 50 who retired on reaching retirement age. That list contains an even more striking component of mental disorders and repetitive strain injury than does any other department. Thirty out of the 58 applicants were successful in gaining early retirement because of mental disorder and 17 from RSI. As I said when discussing the other departments, the Government has to do something about his matter. I will also deal briefly with ministerial council meetings. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) responded quite properly on this matter in the Estimates Committee hearing when he was challenged about the need for the Department to go to Darwin. He said that the Northern Territory Administration would be pretty stroppy if Ministers did not accept its invitation. That is absolutely correct. There is no doubt about it. People in the Northern Territory like having the opportunity of showing departmental officers and Ministers from other States and from the Federal arena just what the problems are up there. This is an opportunity for them to do so. However, it is worth noting that the ministerial council meetings also include meetings in New Zealand. As I understand it, the next meeting will be held there. Even though this principle has existed with governments of all persuasions, it is a total nonsense. There may be some merit in one person from New Zealand being allowed into some of these ministerial meetings but to have full ministerial meetings of Australian Ministers and their officials in New Zealand strikes me as being a great ramp. It might be a pleasant trip. Why should they not be held in Port Moresby? We probably have as close links with Papua New Guinea now as we have with New Zealand. Probably the only close links we have with New Zealand is that its pilots now fly our former A4 aircraft that we sold at ludicrously low prices. That is about our only defence link. I want to stress that some of the matters raised at ministerial council meetings-not concerning the Department of Social Security but concerning, say, agriculture-involve setting market strategies, trade strategies, and making decisions of significance which affect Australian agriculture and the whole rural sector. In that case a savage competitor sits in on the ministerial council meetings. I accept that in this Department there is no savage competition, except that we have had some little bits of conflict in social security about whether New Zealanders should be entitled to the levels of payments in Australia that they had been getting in the past. It may well be that having a New Zealand representative at that kind of conference could assist us to save some money. In that case, perhaps the whole venture is worth while. It seems to me to be a matter of some disturbance. Also I trust that morale within the Department of Social Security has been improved since those very unfortunate figures we have seen for workers compensation, invalidity and so on were recorded. I hope that the extraordinary decision by the Government to spend $20,000 providing funding for a play called In Security to be put on in the Department of Social Security by employees thereof and which involved-I quote from the person involved-`a heavy political message' did result in some improvement in morale. There is no doubt from these figures that something has to be done to improve the morale, status and standing of those people in the Department of Social Security because working there obviously makes them sick. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.21) —In response to the last remark from Senator Michael Baume, if I had to work in the Darlinghurst office of the Department of Social Security I might get sick fairly often. The matters of concern he raised about the levels of invalidity retirement and particularly levels of repetitive strain injury et cetera are obviously of great concern to everybody. It would be foolish to say otherwise. My colleague the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, is particularly concerned. Some of the changes we hope to make to Public Service administration in this country, through the Public Service Board, are aimed at that. Not for one minute would I claim that that situation is satisfactory, particularly the large number of people who retire due to mental disorders and RSI. It is not only a fecund department, it is a very female department. Something like 65 per cent of its employees are female. In case it has escaped the attention of Senator Michael Baume, females tend to have babies. That is the reason for the high level of maternity leave. In fact, it is a very young department. When I was Minister for Social Security I knew the figures on the number of young people in the Department-because of the considerable expansion of that Department in the last 10 or 15 years. Also, I suppose the high number of keyboard operators contributes to the number of people with RSI. My advisers have just handed me figures on the number of young people in the Department. The number of people from 20 to 24 years represents 21.8 per cent of the permanent staff; 25 to 29 years, 24.9 per cent; 30 to 34 years, 19.2 per cent. The percentage in that Department is consistently higher than in other areas of the Public Service. That is one of the explanations for the high level of maternity leave. At the last ministerial council meeting in Darwin I put to the members Senator Walters's suggestion that such council meetings should be held in Canberra. I have written to Senator Walters to give her the reply of all the Ministers. Interestingly, one of the most colourful replies came from Mrs Yvonne Chapman, the Queensland Minister, who did not think much at all of meeting in Canberra all the time. New Zealand has been an attender at these meetings for a long time. Like other departments in Australia, we have gone to meetings in New Zealand. It has been pointed out by my Department and the Department of Social Security that it is cheaper to go to New Zealand than to Perth. I will again put it that maybe we should not go to New Zealand. As to the number of staff who go, it has always been of interest to me in my time as Minister-I understand it was also of interest to Senator Chaney, who preceded me-that in relation to the Federal Department, whose budget tends to be such that the average budget of a State welfare department is about four or five days of expenditure for the Federal Department of Social Security, when we go to ministerial council meetings people such as Senator Chaney and I manage with one personal staff member and the director of the Department and the States seem to need a team. I have always suggested that it is because of the greater capacity of the Ministers and staff at Federal level- Senator Gareth Evans —Right on, Minister. Senator GRIMES —Senator Evans agrees with me. I have noted this over the few years that I have been a Minister. Senator Gareth Evans —It is the only trip they get. Senator GRIMES —I suppose they are the only trips that State Ministers get and most of our people become sick to death of travelling. During Estimates committee hearings Senator Peter Baume pointed out that anyone who thought that ministerial council meetings were a great junket and fun and games really ought to go to one. I find that people change their views about that immediately they become Ministers and have to attend such things. I take the point that such meetings should not be junkets and should not be high cost things. I have given my Department a warning that I will not take a whole team just because the next meeting is in New Zealand. Mr Howe, his predecessor, I and my predecessor are very careful about the number of people we take on trips such as this. I do not know about the play. People here tell me that there was some arrangement whereby people got leave to rehearse the play. I do not know any details about it and neither does anybody here. I will have to find out the details for the honourable senator. I hope that the play was successful and I hope it did improve the morale of the Department, but it is not something I am going to institute in my Department. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.26) —The Minister will know that I have given him some questions on notice. I presume that he will reply at a later date in writing. Senator Grimes —I will. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Health Proposed expenditure, $526,957,000. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.26) —This is my first intervention in this debate on the-- Senator Grimes —That is no excuse. Senator PETER BAUME —Nevertheless I am going to make it. I refer to division 325, sub-division 3, items 04, 08 and 14, all of which deal with drug education or public health matters. In the Senate on 22 October 1986, as recorded on page 1723 of Hansard, I asked six questions of Senator Grimes, the Minister representing the Minister for Health, about matters arising out of advertisements published in Australian news papers by the Tobacco Institute of Australia. The advertisements were published in July of this year and concerned the health evidence on passive smoking. I have subsequently received a letter from the Tobacco Institute of Australia. No doubt Senator Grimes has received a similar letter in which the Tobacco Institute of Australia alleges that I have misled the Senate with my questions and it is asked that I withdraw my remarks in the Senate. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Do you want to withdraw them? Senator PETER BAUME —Not a bit, Mr Temporary Chairman. I want to answer those allegations and I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter which has been written to me by the Tobacco Institute of Australia. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- TOBACCO INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA Limited (Inc in Vic) 1 November 1986 Senator The Hon P Baume Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Senator Baume I refer to statements made by you under privilege in the Senate on 22.10.86 and reported in Hansard (pp 1723 & 1724) of that date, in which you made serious accusations against the Tobacco Institute of Australia. The TIA rejects those accusations and wishes to draw to your attention serious errors in your claims. 1. You stated that the TIA had claimed that Dr Robert Masironi of the WHO and Professors Robin Weiss and Julian Peto of the Institute of Cancer Research has ``claimed that passive smoking was safe''. The TIA has never made any such claim. 2. You also stated that the doctor and the two Professors had written to newspapers ``refuting the claims made by the TIA, which used their names in newspaper advertisements''. The TIA has never mentioned the names of Doctor Masironi, Professor Weiss or Professor Peto in any advertisement. 3. You further stated that Professors Weiss and Peto had to write letters ``refuting conclusions attributed to them by the TIA''. The TIA has never mentioned nor attributed any conclusions to either of those persons in any advertisement. The facts are that: A. in a letter published in the Financial Review on 25 July 1986, Professor Weiss and Peto, on behalf of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, attempted to disown a ``passive smoking'' study and its conclusions, which had been referred to in an advertisement published by the TIA. That attempt to disown the study is inconsistent with the origin and history of the study for the following reasons: (a) Dr Weiss, in a 2 September 1986 letter to the Trade Practices Commission, stated that funding for the study was not paid to the individuals who conducted it but to the Institute. (b) the individuals associated with the study were respectively the holder of the Institute's Chair of Epidemiology, a Senior Research Officer of the Institute, and a Honorary Research Fellow of the Institute. (c) the study was consistently claimed by the Institute in its annual reports as one of its projects. (d) the letter written by Professors Weiss and Peto to the London ``Times'' newspaper (published 5 July 1986) in response to a news item previously published in that paper, did not contain the same repudiation of the study which they made in their letter to the Australian press. In their former letter, the only statement touching on this aspect of the matter was in the following terms: ``This research on the effects of passive smoking which began in 1977 was conducted in collaboration with the Institute of Cancer Research but funded by the Tobacco Advisory Council under an arrangement which included adequate safeguards of scientific impartiality''. (e) in his 2 September 1986 letter to the Trade Practices Commission, Dr Weiss concedes that the TIA publication ``accurately portrays the report in the London ``Times'' and does not otherwise indicate why the study should not be described as the Institute's study. If for reasons of their own, Dr Weiss and Dr Peto now wish to distance themselves from the conclusions of the study which their Institute instigated and, during its progress, denoted as one of its projects, that is a matter for them and they have, through the press, taken the opportunity to do so. Such an attitude on their part does not, however, render misleading the attribution of the study to the Institute of Cancer Research. B. in a letter published in the Financial Review on 6 August 1986, Dr Masironi asserted that the WHO did not participate or co-operate in any way in the 1984 Vienna Conference on passive smoking. Contrary to that assertion: (a) in his opening address to that conference Professor H Valentin: thanked the WHO for its co-operation; mentioned the participation of high-ranking representatives of the WHO in the Conference; and referred to the scientific patronage of the conference by the WHO. (refer the American Health Foundation Journal ``Preventive Medicine'', Volume 13, 1984, pages 559 and 560). (b) Dr Joseph Handler, a former Director of the WHO in the Preface to ``Medical Perspectives on Passive Smoking'' published in 1986 by the International Green Cross states that: ``The meeting was organised by the German and Austrian Societies for Occupational & Social Medicine, and The American Health Foundation, in collaboration with the International Green Cross and the World Health Organisation''. I enclose a copy of the advertisement so that you can actually see the statements made by the Tobacco Institute of Australia. We do agree with one point in your question and that is the need for Australians to be presented with truthful and balanced information on smoking so that each one of us can make our own responsible decision about this personal practice. The false assertions by Doctor Masironi, Professors Weiss and Peto and your own misrepresenting of the facts under privilege in Parliament do not serve to present Australians with truthful and balanced information. We would therefore request that the record be set straight by a withdrawal of your remarks in the Senate. Yours sincerely David Bacon Executive Officer Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Committee. The letter, which deals with certain semantic points as to whether Dr X or some institute said something, completely fails to address the issues we raised. The advertisements I referred to in my questions to Senator Grimes are part of an ongoing campaign orchestrated by the tobacco industry and its specialist lobby group, the Tobacco Institute of Australia, which aims to mislead, to confuse the general public and members of this Parliament about the health dangers of tobacco smoking both to smokers and to non-smokers. I was privileged to chair the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare in 1977 which looked specifically at the questions of tobacco as a cause of death in Australia. That Committee reported: The number of deaths, the morbidity and the misery caused by smoking are very substantial. It is not only that the smoking causes death; it cause many deaths. Cigarette smoking is still as important a cause of death as were the great epidemic diseases of the past. The Committee also said: It appears that the fact of tobacco's being dangerous is no longer subject to question in responsible quarters. The Committee rejects the assertions of the tobacco industry that there is no proven relationship between tobacco smoking and ill health. The Committee in its report further said: The Committee expresses disappointment that the Australian cigarette manufacturers still do not acknowledge that there is any evidence that tobacco use is a causal factor in ill health. But that was back in 1977. It appears that there is no longer argument that tobacco smoking is a cause of death. Tobacco kills, and it is now just a matter of defining just how many deaths are caused by smoking tobacco. The Government has released statistics in relation to the so-called drug offensive which have indicated that the death toll from tobacco is of the order of 16,000 Australians per year-from various diseases including lung cancer, heart disease, strokes, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. However, in the Medical Journal of Australia on 7 July this year an article by Dr Darcy Holman and Ms Ruth Shean was published which indicated that the death toll might be more than 46 per cent higher than the Government's figure. That could lead to an annual figure of 23,000 a year. On 25 September this year, during the hearings of Estimates Committee B, I asked the Minister and, through him, the Department of Health to clarify whether the figure of 16,000 was an underestimate and whether the true figure was closer to 23,000 deaths a year. Let us imagine that 23,000 deaths a year were occurring from some industrial cause or some other public health cause. It would be a scandal. But it is happening from cigarette smoking. At that time the departmental adviser responded by saying that he was not aware of the basis on which the new estimate was derived. I now ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health: Is the true annual mortality figure in Australia due to tobacco smoking around 16,000 a year or is it a higher figure, perhaps closer to 23,000, as indicated by the Medical Journal of Australia on 7 July this year? The failure of the Government properly to acknowledge the true toll of smoking caused death and disease in this country only continues to serve the tobacco industry's interests by deliberately clouding and confusing the public's mind in regard to the fact that tobacco is the number one cause of preventable death and disease in Australia today. However, the issue for the 1980s is not whether smoking is dangerous to the smoker. That is proven and, by the way, it is a matter for each smoker. I am not trying to stop people smoking on that ground. It is up to them. The new issue is whether smoking is dangerous to the non-smoker-so-called passive smoking. The question has been researched only relatively recently-say, in the last five to 10 years. Not surprisingly, because of various methodological problems, some of the early studies showed no conclusive effect of tobacco smoke on the health of non-smokers. However, as more studies were conducted, the evidence became more conclusive. The National Heart Foundation of Australia, in its landmark publication last year, entitled `So You Think You're a Non-Smoker?' reviewed all of the published medical evidence to July 1985. The National Heart Foundation concluded: There is now more than enough health evidence against passive smoking to warrant remedial and preventive action: we recommend that non-smokers play it safe for themselves and their children by taking steps to avoid tobacco smoke wherever possible. Perhaps the National Heart Foundation is wrong. Perhaps the Tobacco Institute is more knowledgeable. Perhaps there is no risk from passive smoking. But the National Heart Foundation's report was followed by a report of the working party of the NHMRC-the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia-on the effect of passive smoking on health. This report was adopted at the 101st session of the Council in June 1986. Its conclusions are the same as those of the National Heart Foundation and every other medical authority which has published a major report on this issue. Perhaps the NHMRC is wrong. Perhaps the Tobacco Institute is right. Perhaps there is no risk from passive smoking. But the inhalation of tobacco smoke by non-smokers does pose a risk to their health and a risk of contracting various diseases. The risk is small when compared to the health risks suffered by active smokers. But it is significant, it is measurable and it is an unsolicited risk. Responsible governments should take steps to protect those people in their communities who choose not to have their health damaged by tobacco smoke. In order to give honourable senators an indication of just how large the risk to the passive smoker is, I would like to consider just one of the diseases-lung cancer. It has been estimated that passive smoking is responsible for the deaths of about 64 Australians from lung cancer each year. Let us just imagine if one consignment of food was contaminated and 64 Australians died. There would be a running scandal in the Press. But we estimate that 64 non-smokers die each year from lung cancer as a result of passive smoking. I am sure honourable senators would agree that this risk is pretty small if one compares that figure to the figure of 3,000 or 4,000 Australians who die from lung cancer each year due to active smoking. However, for the 64 people who did not smoke, who contracted lung cancer from other people's tobacco smoke and who died from lung cancer it was a very significant event. The important point is: How have the tobacco industry generally and the Tobacco Institute of Australia specifically responded to this mounting medical evidence of the health dangers of passive smoking? They have responded by attempting to confuse the objective scientific debate on this question and deliberately to mislead and confuse the people of Australia. On Tuesday, 1 July 1986 in the Australian newspaper, and in other newspapers on and around that date, the Tobacco Institute lodged an advertisement entitled: `A message from those who do. . . to those who don't'. It talked about cigarette smoking. The advertisement purported to establish that there is little evidence, and nothing which proves scientifically, that cigarette smoke causes disease in non-smokers. Because the Tobacco Institute of Australia has no credibility with anyone, in this advertisement it drew heavily on the credibility of three major organisations which are well regarded-the Institute of Cancer Research in Surrey, England, the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organisation. I would like to demonstrate to honourable senators how the Tobacco Institute of Australia has used the names of these prestigious organisations in a diabolically misleading manner. I refer first to the Institute of Cancer Research. The tobacco industry's campaign to mislead began with the publication of a report on page 11 of the London Times of 20 June 1986. That report foreshadowed the publication of a research paper in the following month's issue that is, in the July issue, of the British Journal of Cancer. Honourable senators will be aware that this issue of the British Journal of Cancer would have been published in England in July, but it would come to Australia some time later. In fact, the library at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University did not receive that particular issue of the British Journal of Cancer until 16 September. The medical library at the University of Sydney received it on 17 September, and the medical library at the University of Melbourne received it on 24 September. Notwithstanding the fact that the article was not available in Australia and notwithstanding the fact that it was working from a newspaper report, the Tobacco Institute of Australia rushed into print advertisements which made statements about, and drew conclusions from, the report published in the London Times-not even from the report published in the British Journal of Cancer. It is apparent that the Tobacco Institute did not check the facts before publishing the advertisement. It would seem, given that the issue of the journal which contained the article referred to in the advertisement was not available in Australia until almost three months later, that it sought to establish in the minds of the public the false impression that passive smoking was not dangerous to the health of non-smokers. Ordinarily, its assertions in these advertisements would have gone unchallenged until the report was available in Australia. In the interim, the view which it put forward would have been firmly established in the public's mind. Let us look at what the Tobacco Institute said about the report from the Institute of Cancer Research. It said: The London Times reported findings from the Institute of Cancer Research in Surrey, England, published in this month's edition of the `British Journal of Cancer,' that `passive smoking' for life-long non-smokers carries no significant increase in the risk of lung cancer, bronchitis or heart disease (all allegedly associated with smoking). The Institute's conclusions are based on a wealth of statistical detail- I repeat: A wealth of statistical detail- from a study involving 12,000 people. Much weight was placed on the claim that the British study of passive smoking involved 12,000 people. Yet, when one looks at the report, one notes that the findings for lung cancer, upon which the advertisement concentrated, and about which it sought to mislead the Australian public, are actually based on a study of only 47 non-smokers with lung cancer and 96 non-smokers without lung cancer. What is all of this nonsense about 12,000 people? The findings for bronchitis and heart disease are based on even smaller numbers. So of the 12 formal studies on passive smoking and lung cancer that have now been published, this British study is one of the smallest. I have a few more comments to make, but I will yield the floor to another senator. I will resume my remarks when I get the call again. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.40) —I rise to give Senator Peter Baume the chance to finish. Senator Elstob —Madam Temporary Chair, I would like to enter this debate. Senator GRIMES —Senator Elstob can enter the debate, but I have risen. The usual thing is to let the person on the other side finish. Then Senator Elstob can enter the debate. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.41) —I thank the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, for his courtesy and I invite Senator Elstob to enter the debate later as this is a very important matter. This study which was misquoted by the Tobacco Institute of Australia is also the only study on this subject which was funded by the tobacco industry. The Tobacco Institute advertisement claimed that the British study was carried out by the Institute of Cancer Research. It wants to use the name of that prestigious organisation. In fact, the study was carried out by three individuals-Robert Masironi, Robin Weiss and Julian Peto. Their paper contained a specific disclaimer, which was as follows: Any views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not any other person or company. I also note that this known inaccuracy was repeated by David Bacon of the Tobacco Institute in his letter to me in which he demanded that I withdraw, which of course I refused to do. He was still trying to argue Cancer Institute endorsement for the study, despite the clear disclaimer in the paper. I do not think the Tobacco Institute knows fact from fiction when it comes to what it is trying to sell. Each of the three doctors I mentioned-Drs Masironi, Weiss and Peto-was forced to write to the Australian newspapers, individually dissociating themselves from the Tobacco Institute advertisement. Each of them pointed out that the paper referred to did not have the endorsement of the Institute of Cancer Research. That does not seem to worry the Tobacco Institute as that was not acknowledged in the letter it wrote to me. The Institute has what in Hebrew is called chutzpah, which roughly defined is that quality-- Senator Gareth Evans —Cheek. Senator PETER BAUME —That is right, the man who murders his parents and throws himself upon the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. It has plenty of chutzpah, even if it does not have much humility or honesty. In addition, Dr Masironi had to correct the references in the advertisement to the World Health Organisation, which was also referred to. He said: The World Health Organisation rejects the misrepresentation and unauthorised use of its name in the cause of the tobacco industry to downplay the health risks of passive smoking. At the 77th session of the World Health Organisation executive meeting, held in Geneva in January this year, the World Health Organisation reaffirmed and strengthened its public views of the health dangers of smoking to both smokers and non-smokers. Perhaps the World Health Organisation is wrong too, along with all the other expert bodies, and perhaps it is only the Tobacco Institute that has it right. He further stated: The executive board unanimously adopted a resolution which takes a strong position against enforced smoking, which means inhaling other people's smoke. In the advertisement the Tobacco Institute refers to `the remarks at the conclusion of the 1984 Vienna Health Conference which was held in co-operation with the World Health Organisation.' Despite what may have been said at the Conference and later by the tobacco industry, the World Health Organisation did not participate or co-operate in the conference in any way, and accordingly statements arising from participants at the conference cannot be construed as being endorsed by the World Health Organisation. That is because quite clearly the World Health Organisation does not hold the views that the tobacco industry has attributed to it. He went on to say: The resolution of the executive board of the World Health Organisation is quite explicit. Steps should be taken to `ensure that non-smokers receive effective protection, to which they are entitled, from involuntary exposure to smoke, in enclosed public places, restaurants, transport and places of work and entertainment. I say to Senator Elstob that that in no way seeks to restrict the right of people to smoke. It merely seeks to ensure the right of other people not to have to inhale other people's smoke. It is most important to note that the Tobacco Institute knew all this information when it published its advertisement. The advertisement not only was misleading but also was deliberately misleading and recklessly incorrect. All this was set out in a WHO Press release of 16 January 1986, of which the Tobacco Institute was aware, yet David Bacon still tried in his letter to me to put forward incorrect and inaccurate information. He should have known from the three sources that it was wrong. He should have known because there was a letter from Dr Wynder of 8 September 1986. He should have known because there was a report back to WHO from a Dr Nedd Willard, an information officer with the WHO who attended the Vienna conference, and he should have known because of the specific refutation of his claims by Dr Robert Masironi published in the Australian Financial Review. In my language this makes the Tobacco Institute a deliberate teller of untruths. Fortunately, however, action is being taken against the Tobacco Institute. The Advertising Standards Council of Australia has already upheld a complaint against the Tobacco Institute's advertisement. The Advertising Standards Council has found that the Tobacco Institute had breached the advertising code of ethics relating to advertisements being truthful and not misleading or deceptive. That has happened. Again, that does not go to the rights of smokers; it goes to the requirement that advertisers tell the truth. The Tobacco Institute has not. The Trade Practices Commission is continuing its investigations under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act which deals with false and misleading advertising. The Trade Practices Commission has the power to fine an offender or to order corrective advertising. It is reputed that the Tobacco Institute's advertisements in this case cost in excess of $80,000. Given its very substantial budget, I believe it should be forced to spend a similar amount on corrective advertising. Given the blatant attempt by the Tobacco Institute of Australia to deceive Australians, I invite the Government to set up a full independent inquiry into this incident and into the role of the Tobacco Institute of Australia in deliberately continually misleading people in the pursuit of what is-- Senator Gareth Evans —Why do you need an inquiry when you have all those other mechanisms you have referred to. Stop grandstanding. Senator PETER BAUME —The Minister for Resources and Energy might have a few things to say, but the Tobacco Institute of Australia has proceeded quite recklessly and deliberately to try to mislead the public, and these facts should be made well known to everybody. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(4.48) —Where is the truth in this debate? I think that is the important thing to look at. I am not saying that I have smoked for a long time and it has not affected me. I will be 62 at the end of this month and I have smoked since I was 12, but I would not advise anyone to smoke. I do think there is a lot of misinformation spread about and I think we should look at the medical profession. I have nothing against the medical profession at all. I think the majority of doctors do a great job in this country, but there are aspects that we should look at. If we are to believe all that the medical profession says about smoking and passive smoking, maybe we should go back a little bit and look at other matters. Let me remind Senator Peter Baume that it was in the 1930s that all the research was done on asbestos. At that time not one British insurance company would insure any worker who worked in the asbestos industry in England. Yet the medical profession did not relay to the public at that time how dangerous asbestos was, and workers in this country and in every other country on this earth worked without the proper precautions. Consequently, thousands upon thousands of people have died from asbestosis. Yet the medical profession knew about asbestosis in 1930. Because this debate came on suddenly, I do not have the precise details with me at the moment. Thalidomide is another thing that the medical profession said was safe. In all honesty it said it was good for morning sickness. So do not tell me that the medical profession is all knowledgeable. It is not. I had never been ill in my life until last year. I had a gall-bladder operation and when the surgeon was to operate on me I asked him to have a good look around. He said: `You're a heavy smoker'. I said: `Yes, I smoke 50 to 60 cigarettes a day and have all my life'. He said: `Goodness gracious me'. However, after he had operated he said that I was in perfect condition. He tested my lungs, my heart and my blood pressure and I am in perfect condition. I said to him: `If I had had cancer you would have put me down as a statistic because I smoked'. He said: `Yes, I certainly would have'. I asked: `What about the other side of the ledger? I am a bad person. I smoke a great deal. You did not list me as one of the people who have not been affected by smoking'. He said: `No, we don't do that'. So where does the honourable senator get his statistics from? I am not saying that smoking is good for people but I believe in many instances people in this country and many other countries think that by going to a medical practitioner they will be given a pill for every ill, and that is not what it is about. Throughout my life I have taken only very little medicine, but I exercise. At 62 I practise tai kwon do; I am a third dan. I exercise, work and enjoy life, and that is the answer to many problems. Is ill health due to smoking? I could direct the medical profession's attention to people who have been extremely ill from working in petrochemical industries and the coking industry with coke furnaces. They have many things wrong with them. We should not blame it all on tobacco and cigarettes, that is all I am saying. It is totally unfair and unjust for the medical profession or anybody else to come up with statistics and say: `This is the only thing that is causing bad health'. That, to my mind, is totally wrong. I would like the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) to tell me exactly how one gets these statistics. There is much more in this debate than meets the eye. It is not as easy as Senator Baume says it is. It has a lot to do with health, but it is within themselves to influence this. If one believes that one is healthy, if one wants to be healthy and if one uses one's body, that is the way to go. I have never been obnoxious about smoking. If somebody says to me that he objects to my smoking, I respect his wishes. Today it is unfortunate that there are so many one issue people. There is not enough co-operation and understanding for each other, some give and take. That is the worst thing about our society today. If the issue of these one issue people is not smoking it is that people should not have a drink. I have never been drunk in my life, but I enjoy a smoke. Many of my mates were servicemen and they were very upset, to say the least, when they came back from the war and the doctors said `Come here, you poor chap. We understand you and all the traumas that you have suffered' and gave these men barbiturates. Today those people are drug addicts; they are still on barbiturates. Senator Walters —Oh! Senator ELSTOB —I tell the honourable senator truthfully that they are still on barbiturates today. Senator Baume would also truthfully say that that is so. Doctors do not give barbiturates to other people, but all the returned servicemen were given barbiturates, and that is a disgrace. People should have said: `Come on. Get on with living'. They did not need that sort of sympathy. I do not tell untruths. This is not a simple question. There should be a better debate than people simply saying: `This is all wrong and that is all right'. I do not believe that. People are becoming narrow-minded, and that worries me. All people have rights. We should debate this matter more effectively and there should be better understanding within the community if we want a healthier community. It is not wise to go down one narrow track and to say: `This is how it will be'. What is good for me may not be beneficial to somebody else but I find that to have a cigarette satisfies me. I do not take a lot of drugs or prescriptions; I very seldom have a cold or am ill. In all my life, the occasion I mentioned was the first time that I have been ill. I have been injured. As I said, I have nothing against the medical profession-it does a magnificent job-but it should not tell me that it is all knowing; it is not. That is where the problem arises. People believe that members of the medical profession are all knowing, that they know more than others, but I do not think they really do. I rose to counter some of the claims that have been made. A lot of pure nonsense has been said. As I said, it would be wise to have a more open debate on this issue. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.56) —I rise to support Senator Peter Baume on this issue. I think members of my Party would support him too. I was going to raise the issue of improper advertising by the tobacco companies. As a statistician by training, I have had a chance to look at some of the statistics which are involved. Without getting technical, I support Senator Baume in his arguments. Sometimes it is very difficult with sample statistics to get absolute answers; in fact one never does. However, some of the surveys that have been carried out have produced whole population statistics which give a much better assessment of the problems that may arise in specific situations. Of course it is not possible to do experiments with human beings, to have double blind experiments and to set out special types of statistical experiments, as one can do with plants and such like. However, we understand a lot about whole population statistics. I point out to Senator Elstob that there is overwhelming evidence to support the claim that to smoke is a rather dangerous habit and that it is also a very dangerous habit to get too near to smokers. Senator Elstob —Do you drive a motor car? Senator VIGOR —Yes, and that is a dangerous process too, but I do not think that type of argument is valid. I try to avoid dangerous practices generally. I ask the Government, firstly, whether it plans to continue to allow organisations that produce tobacco products and promote them to claim the advertising and promotion of such products-the types of advertisements which Senator Baume mentioned-as tax deductions. Approximately 50 per cent of those advertisements are being paid for by the Australian public because the companies can deduct advertising expenses from their tax bill. I also believe that we are being misled by the tobacco companies in the labelling of cigarette packets. In the United States of America quite specific and detailed information is given about the tar and nicotine levels in tobacco. Here we have just some very broad band categories for these levels and a specific figure is not given. I would like to know whether there is any intention of getting a more detailed analysis printed on the products people are imbibing or smoking. It would be useful to include the expected carbon monoxide labelling on cigarette packets. I wonder whether in the future we can get specific figures for all three levels-tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide-or whether we will continue with the broad band approach which leaves most smokers totally confused and a lot of them thinking that the brand they are smoking is quite safe. Given the objectives of the drug offensive, what will the Government be doing to improve information about the dangerous contents of tobacco products? Perhaps Senator Grimes will answer the general question I have raised. However, chewing tobacco, which is now being advertised on our markets, is known to be associated with a number of cancers of the mouth and lips. Certain overseas countries are considering banning this type of product. Is there any intention to stop the sale of this type of product before it catches on? It seems to me that we have to take some pretty dramatic action if this offensive is to work. Just to show Senator Elstob that I am not a one issue person, I believe that a similar labelling technique should be used in respect of the caffeine content of products. The problems associated with caffeine should be studied. Can the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) tell us whether there is any intention of developing an education process in respect of caffeine and the caffeine content of food so that people can make wiser choices about what they consume? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.02) —I will be very brief. I am tempted to get up here and present myself as an example, in contrast to Senator Elstob, of someone who smoked for a long time and say: `Look what happened to me'. But I had better not. Senator Elstob —Go on. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator reminds me of a 90-year-old patient who was dying and who said to me: `You know, I knew this would happen. I smoked from the age of 15 for 60 years. Then you doctors stopped me smoking and I have only lived for another 15 years after that'. They are the sorts of statistics that I am afraid are bandied around against Senator Peter Baume, on whose side I occasionally find myself. I just make one defence of the medical profession. I do not think we are one issue people, but it was not the medical profession that hid from the rest of the community the connection between asbestosis and asbestos, or mesothelioma and asbestos. It was lack of activity by all sorts of people, but particularly politicians, some public health authorities and some people who had vested interests in the area that stopped that. I do not think that most of us are one issue people. What we are saying is that cigarette smoking is not good for a person; that statistically if one smokes one is much more likely to get certain diseases than if one does not; and one way of reducing the likelihood of getting those diseases is to stop smoking. Secondly, we are saying that the cost to the general populace of treating the 17,000 or 20,000 plus people who die every year and the many others who have a high morbidity rate in this area is considerable. On balance, therefore, it is probably a good thing that people knock off the smokes, in the same way as it is a good thing that they knock off all sorts of other activities. What Senator Peter Baume was particularly on about was an advertisement which he and I made mention of in the Senate on 22 October. One David Bacon, the Executive Officer of the Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd, took offence at our remarks. He sent me a four-page letter, which I assume is much the same as the letter received by Senator Baume, and demanded that I withdraw the remarks I made in the Senate. I must say that I join with Senator Baume in saying that I am not going to withdraw those remarks. I am certainly not going to do so on the basis of the extraordinary letter that was sent to me, which is full of a lot of semantic nonsense and avoids all the issues. The issue is simply this: The Tobacco Institute of Australia lied in the advertisement it put in the news- papers of this country; it misrepresented the Institute of Cancer Research in Surrey; it misrepresented the World Health Organisation; it misrepresented the American Cancer Society; and, in doing so, it misled the population of this country. It misled anyone who bothered to read its advertisement. That is what this matter is about. I think Senator Baume and I were justified in what we said at that time. I think Senator Baume is justified in what he is saying now. Mr Bacon can whistle for his apology for as long as he likes. I think he also should apologise to Dr Masironi, Professor Weiss and Professor Peto for the nonsense he has written about them in the letter. I do not believe that we need an independent inquiry into this advertisement. We have had enough independent inquiries in this country. I think the effect of the honourable senator's words and mine will probably be sufficient. They will not make the Institute repent and they will not prevent it from acting in this way again, but I think we have enough controls on advertising without having an independent inquiry. Senator Vigor talked about the problems of labelling. My colleague the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is very keen on the accurate labelling of tobacco and health products. One of the problems in this country is that if one does not get the co-operation of the States at ministerial council meetings, it is very difficult to move. Dr Blewett is seeking to do so. I do not know the extent to which he wants to go into the labelling of carbon dioxide levels. However, I will find out from him and give the honourable senator a reply. I would be mortified if the habit of chewing tobacco were introduced into this country. I am not sure that one succeeds a lot by banning such products. We do not seem to have succeeded very well with marihuana and heroin. I reckon it would be very easy to get around a ban on chewing tobacco. Indeed, a ban could make such a practice more attractive. Anyone who has lived in the southern States of the United States America, where chewing tobacco is fairly common, would realise that it is a pretty offensive habit. Caffeine has been researched since the early 1900s, if not earlier, and will continue to be researched at pharmacological institutes throughout the world. There is obviously considerable concern about its effects. Personally, I would be in favour of having caffeine levels displayed on products. It is sometimes not easy to determine the level, particularly in the case of a product such as tea, which has a high caffeine level. The level of caffeine present in the drink depends on the length of time of infusion and the way in which the drink is prepared. Perhaps I am not as convinced of the evils of caffeine as Senator Vigor may have implied he was. However, I will ask my colleague Dr Blewett to what extent he and the States are progressing in their efforts to get better labelling of food products generally in the community. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.08) —When we were dealing with the previous estimates the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) made the point that having a ministerial council meeting in New Zealand cost less in terms of air fares than having one in Perth. The Department of Health disproves that proposition. I have looked up what it costs the Department of Health to hold its ministerial meetings in New Zealand. The latest meeting on 4 April this year ran for three days at a total cost to the Department of $18,178. The cost to the Department of a ministerial meeting held in Perth five years ago was $4,800-that is, less than a quarter of the cost of the most recent meeting. Inflation is not responsible for anything like that cost differential. By the look of things, the same number of people were involved and the meetings ran for the same number of days. In 1981 the air fares to Perth cost $3,250; the air fares to Rotorua in New Zealand cost $9,980. Accommodation costs in New Zealand were $7,500 and accommodation costs in Perth were $1,484. Senator Grimes —Where did they stay? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —This was in 1981. However, the interjection is reasonable because in those days a very tall person who was Prime Minister took the view that it was immoral, indecent and obscene to spend Commonwealth money. I only wish that the short person who is now the Prime Minister would take the same cautious view of spending government funds, particularly in this time of economic crisis. The evidence does seem to contradict what the Minister at the table, the Minister for Community Services, was saying. I would like also to mention very briefly that the Department of Health has been engaged in many public relations and advertising campaigns, none of which I can recall objecting to. The only ones I do object to are those Government campaigns which appear to be heavily oriented towards promoting the Prime Minister. While the intention of most of these campaigns may be fine, the execution seems to be curious and very expensive. I do not want to go into the enormous costs and the specific advertising agencies involved in some of the campaigns. All I say is that despite the fact that the Government now has a very substantial public relations group-in fact I do not know of any government that has been more expensively serviced in the public relations area-a very large number of consultants appear to be being paid very large amounts of money by the Department of Health for public relations. I do not know whether this is necessary. It seems to me to involve a fair amount of spending and I think it is reasonable that the people of Australia should be made aware of what the expenditure is. For example, in a sheet presented as a result of a question I asked in the Senate Estimates committee hearings for the 1985-86 financial year we see that Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd was paid $330,000 to undertake public relations work and co-ordinate the national network of public relations for the national campaign against drug abuse. Mezzo Media was paid $44,558 to undertake work associated with NCADA with emphasis on the media coverage of the campaign. I. Buttrose undertook research and public relations work in connection with community education at a cost of $45,800. Gay Publications Co-operative was paid to attend the first national conference on the acquired immune deficiency syndrome and to edit and produce a report on the proceedings of the conference. These public relations ventures are, I concede, probably necessary to convey a satisfactory media impression and to get a response in the media, but it strikes me as curious that with the Government having such an enormous public relations operation itself, there should be this need to get so many additional and expensive external consultants into the Department. I hope that the Department and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) are satisfied that all that expenditure has in fact been worth while. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.13) —I will look up the costs of the ministerial council meeting held in New Zealand, which was mentioned by Senator Michael Baume. I suggest the differences may reflect where the members stayed and the sorts of activities that went on over there, as much as the actual cost difference between there and Perth, Western Australia. I do not know how many people the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) takes, but all I know is that those of us on the welfare side are very much more reasonable on this. I do not really want to go into the matter of who was the most parsimonious Prime Minister. I suppose I could mention the fact that in the days Senator Michael Baume talks about, when we had a very tall Prime Minister, it was very good if honourable senators and members went to the members' dining room and ate fairly late at night because they could get expensive French wines as the Prime Minister had a penchant for drinking French wines rather than Australian wines. Senator Walters —Oh, come on. Oh, dear, dear, dear. Senator GRIMES —I did not start this. Senator Walters —You have been so good up to now. Senator GRIMES —I did not start this. The good senator said that this Prime Minister wanted to chuck it around and the previous Prime Minister did not. I was here continuously from 1974 until 1983 and I was not silly. I also know that the National Media Liaison Service, which I suppose is what the honourable senator was talking about, was the same size then as it is now. I well remember that a National Media Liaison Service person in New South Wales was almost an appendage of the party in power at that time. I cannot comment on the individual programs that Senator Michael Baume talks about, but I will concede that no one seems to be able to spend money in this life better, quicker and with greater gusto than advertising agencies and public relations persons. That is why my Department does not indulge in too much of this stuff. We just let our merits be demonstrated by our good works rather than by needing large numbers of people. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.15) —I thank the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) for his previous answer about smoking and caffeine. I direct his attention to the statement by the food, science and technology committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, which said in 1982 that caffeine is, in fact, a drug of addiction and suggests that maybe the drug program should include it. I would like very briefly to look at a couple of really serious problems concerning the health of Australians, relating to hazardous goods. I would like to know-this is a question I am following up from last year's Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates-whether the Government has done anything at ministerial council level to set the wheels in motion so that the consumer protection efforts of the States, Territories and the Commonwealth are co-ordinated much more tightly. What, if anything, is being done to minimise the chances of products, which are declared hazardous in one jurisdiction, being made freely available elsewhere in the country or even transported to other places for sale? This is quite an important business because we still have products which are recognised in some areas as not being safe for consumption, being immediately transported across the borders in large quantities and served up in other States. What is happening about this and what is planned? I also understand that there have been some exchanges between the departments of Health, Aviation and Primary Industry about the presence of air navigation orders which do not consider what is being sprayed from planes. I would like to know what is being done to make sure that the hazardous chemicals are not being sprayed willy-nilly as a result of dispensations about where planes can fly when performing agricultural work. There have in fact been some alarming statistics on deformities and illnesses in areas where a lot of agricultural spraying from aeroplanes has occurred. Does the Government have an automatic procedure for following up adverse reports of this kind or recommendations about which chemicals can be sprayed and what is going to happen in this area? Chemicals are not only sprayed in the air but also chemical residues in certain areas may accumulate in vegetables and other products. What is being done to make sure that safer chemicals replace, for example, chlordimeform, as information has come from West Germany relating to bladder cancer in those who use this chemical? It seems that a number of chemicals of this type are used, including certain insecticides, which are known to be hazardous, which are banned in other countries but which are still available on the Australian market. They are also available to be sprayed from aeroplanes. A lot of innocent people may be affected by a deadly or harmful chemical spray carried by the wind, in the same way as the passive smoker is involuntarily hurt. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.20) —The matters raised by Senator Vigor are important. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the various State Health Ministers are attempting to get uniform standards developed for food legislation, and uniform standards for the control of therapeutic and other goods used in industry. We are be- devilled a bit in this country by having so many State governments, so many different health authorities and so many different government departments responsible for this sort of thing. I will get details for the good senator from the Minister for Health and from his Department. I do not have the answers here. Equally, I have no idea, I am afraid, of what is being done about the problems he talked about in using chemicals sprayed from aeroplanes, in crop dusting, and, I suppose, in the use of insecticides and other things in this way. I will seek what information I can about that. I do know that the Department of Health monitors this sort of thing, as much as possible, through its own facilities, through its international connections and through its membership of international organisations such as the World Health Organisation, and is concerned that we are not left behind by findings in other countries such as the findings in West Germany that Senator Vigor talked about. I just do not have the details on it. I dare say that there can be room for improvement, as there is room for improvement in all our lives. I will see what information I can obtain so Senator Vigor can make a judgment on what improvements can be made in that area. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP C Department of Finance Proposed expenditure, $110,747,000. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.22) —I have a couple of brief remarks to make. I raised in the Senate Estimates Committee C hearing the impact of the devaluation on government computer purchases, particularly purchases from European suppliers. I would like the Committee to note that in the Department of Finance the exchange rate variations that affected the Government's decision to purchase a Nixdorf computer from Germany involved about a doubling of the cost, from something like $3.6m to $6.7m-a variation of $3.1m. I mention that as one of the serious consequences that the Government has to face which arise from the devaluation. When that is spread across many projects one can see the problem the Government has had to face in its budgeting as a result of devaluation. I want to deal briefly with the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office of the Department of Finance. It emerges from a question that Senator Vigor asked relating to a matter about which I am moderately obsessive, and that is superannuation and invalidity retirements. I must say that I am intrigued by the response from the Department which indicates that the Commissioner is empowered by section 74 of the Superannuation Act to require invalidity pensioners who have not attained the age of 65 years to provide information about employment and to undergo medical examinations. If the Commissioner concludes that they are sufficiently restored to health to resume duty he notifies the relevant employing authority, and any subsequent re-employment action becomes an employer responsibility. If re-employment takes place in circumstances in which the pensioner again becomes an eligible employee for Superannuation Act purposes the AGRBO is so informed by the employer and the pension is cancelled. The pension is also cancelled if a pensioner unreasonably refuses to accept an offer of re-employment. An invalidity pension is also cancelled if an invalidity retiree becomes employed in a permament capacity by the Commonwealth Public Service or a statutory authority as a result of a direct approach by the employer-that is, without going through the `restored to health' procedure. What interests me is that the Department then provided a table containing statistics regarding AGRBO's experience over the past four years with the review of invalidity pensioners. I seek leave to incorporate this table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Year Medical examination Found fit for Re-employment Re-employed by APS or Approved Authority (Note 2) Pension Cancelled (Note 3) 1982-83... 936 126 29 35 1983-84... 601 90 36 49 1984-85... 565 49 33 36 1985-86... 356 27 15 17 Notes: 1. In any one year, the figures relating to `examinations', `found fit', `re-employed' and `cancelled' do not necessarily relate to the same individual pensioners. 2. The `Re-employed' column includes both pensioners who are re-employed following direct approach to an employer and those found fit through AGRBO invalidity review process and then offered employment. 3. The `Pensions Cancelled' column includes both pensions cancelled following re-employment and pensions cancelled for unreasonably refusing an offer of re-employment. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The intriguing thing about this table is that, in the last year of the previous Government, the number of medical examinations was 936. It has steadily declined and in the latest year was 356-that is about one-third of the total under the previous Government. The number of people found fit for re-employment has declined from 126 in the last year of the previous Government to only 27 in the last year. The number re-employed by the Commonwealth Public Service or an approved authority has gone down from 29 to 15. The number of pensions cancelled has declined from 35 to 17. Clearly-and this underlines the point I have been making for quite some time-there seems to be some sort of problem that has developed recently in terms of a willingness, on the part of the Government, to pursue this question. It is all very well for the Government to bring new legislation to this place, as it will soon-I think in the next week or so-to introduce new rules; it is not applying the existing ones. This seems to me to be-Senator Vigor is nodding his head in agreement-what has emerged from the specific responses to Senator Vigor's question. I would like to hear a darned good explanation of why the existing procedures, which clearly save the Government considerable amounts of money in terms of those people who are found fit for re-employment and those people who have had pensions cancelled and so on, have not continued. I would like to know this. It does not give one much faith that the new arrangements being introduced, allegedly to fix this problem-which we will deal with in the Senate shortly-will be effective if there is no will behind their implementation. It seems to me, unless there is a reason for it that I do not understand, that there has been a monumental lack of will by the Government to take a strong position in this area. I do not know whether it is because of a special relationship such as the one about which we keep hearing between the Government and the union movement. I hope it is not one of those special relationships which fails to discourage people from collecting invalidity pensions when, in fact, they may well not be entitled to them. Perhaps a dramatic trebling in the illness rate so prompts the situation that there should not be medical examinations and people are totally less fit. As I said, 27 were found fit for re-employment last year as against 126 in 1982-83. The things that emerged from the Senate Estimates committees on this matter do the Government no credit. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.29) —I have seen the answer to which Senator Michael Baume referred. It was in answer to a question, I gather, from Senator Vigor. Quite clearly, the answer is absolutely inadequate. One cannot produce statistics of this type with decreases in annual rates of medical examinations for those found fit, those re-employed and those with pensions cancelled, without having some explanation for them. There is no explanation there. When I was in opposition I would have made considerably more fuss than that which Senator Baume and Senator Vigor have made. Now that I am in government I will remain absolutely consistent. I am sure that my colleague the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, will also be interested in that sort of answer. I will get an adequate answer, which this clearly is not. I have no idea why the statistics have dropped. Therefore, I cannot refute the suggestion made by Senator Michael Baume, although I am perfectly sure that the relationship between this Government and the unions involved in this area is not the explanation for the reduction. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.30) —At the time I was investigating the result of two or three complaints I had received concerning officers in certain departments who had been invalided out because of psychological or psychiatric disorders which seemed to be associated with disagreeing with their superiors. The investigation is continuing. When I received the statistics my reaction was very similar to that of Senator Michael Baume. I am very grateful to him for having raised the matter. If he had not done so, I would have. I would like to ask some serious questions about the `new' practice of program budgeting. Whilst I totally approve of program budgeting, which is meant to report on the cost-effectiveness of programs for the community, I find that the reporting the Senate is getting leaves a considerable amount to be desired. In the course of attending Estimates committee meetings I found that the individual detailed departmental bud- gets of no less than eight departments which had moved to program budgeting seemed not to balance with the consolidated figures in Budget Statement No. 6. I asked the Department of Finance and the individual departments concerned to give me reasons for the lack of reconciliation between the figures. The figures given to me by the Department of Finance were different in various cases from those of the individual departments. This seemed very strange to someone who is used to getting effective answers. Apparently the Department of Finance is recording the information, for which I congratulate it, from departments as it is coded by the departments. Obviously, some departments had re-coded individual items at the lowest level. Most disturbingly, I was wrong in thinking that two of the departments' figures did not balance. The reason the figures did not balance was that I had failed to take into account the special appropriations associated with those departments. However, I still received a cogent answer from the departments concerned and the Department of Finance and a new, `balancing' figure. But this did not increase my confidence in the figures or in the way this new system is working. One of the main things that give confidence to an accountant is if the figures balance in some way. The amounts involved were not serious. What was serious was that they did not balance. I believe that the Senate would be much more able to assess Public Service expenditure and the effectiveness of Public Service programs if it were given figures in more than one form. I am quite certain that the previous financial accounting method of producing for us figures for all the expenditure within expenditure categories and all the revenue within revenue categories must be kept in place. I would be most disturbed if the baby were thrown out with the bath water during the process of going over to program budgeting. Some type of reporting in both ways would give the Senate some way of better assessing the figures. If we want open government and an understanding of how departments are spending their money and what they are spending it on, it is useful to have program budgeting. But it is also useful to know, in breakdown, what money is being spent on consultants, for example, and how those consultants are being used. When questions were asked of the Department of Finance and a number of other departments relating to individual expenditure categories we found that those figures had been lost somewhere in the process. We could get only broad and somewhat fuzzy answers from the departments. That may be because the departments do not quite understand the processes of reporting. It seems to me that reporting in both ways would be useful-not necessarily deluging us with paper but retaining the previous form of reporting as well as using the new form. Modern technology allows one to report in both ways in general. It is a matter of having a different set of keys on each individual expenditure item and summing them in a different way. It would also be very useful in understanding the rationale and the premises on which budgeting decisions are made. The program budgeting system gives us that type of figure but it is much easier to compare actual expenditure with budgeted expenditure under the previous system. There is obviously a problem with the changeover. I would like some comment from the Department in this area. The other thing that worried me about the reporting in the program budgeting process is that when I analysed it I found that certain departments which are considered as basically being cost centres, such as the Department of Communications, are not only cost centres. They are predominantly profit centres. They sell off a scarce resource-in this case our airwaves-to the highest bidder. To cut the engineering staff of the Department of Communications in the present business environment is an idiocy, as it also cuts down on its profitability. It just does not make any business sense. The revenue of certain areas of other departments is also higher than their costs. No such marginal analysis seems to have been done. I would like some comment on this matter, if necessary on notice. I found it very difficult, for example, to consider the Department of Housing and Construction. When we looked at it under the program budgeting system it seemed to do very little in some programs. Maybe the Government should be looking at this area. This is the first year in which the estimates from that Department have been presented on a program by program basis. We no longer have its estimates by expense, but the expenditure still takes place in that Department in the same way. Perhaps other departments have this problem. If the Department of Finance is doing its job-it seems that that is the type of analysis where there is second guessing of the Department by taking the Department's figures and putting them through the computer system of the Department of Finance-it would be very useful if it could do that with both the cost centre type of reporting, which we used to have, and the new program reporting which we now have in the departments which have gone over to program budgeting. I hope that we do not throw out the baby with the bath water. I would find it very useful to have both sets of figures. The cost to the Public Service of getting them should not be very high. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.41) —Senator Vigor's suggestion that I give an answer to most of his questions on notice is very wise. I am the only person in the whole Parliament, in both Houses, who does not claim to be an economist. Therefore, my attempts to explain some of the mysteries to Senator Vigor may be treated with the derision they deserve. I only say that I have a really sinking feeling when someone such as Senator Vigor, who has had training as a statistician, tells us that this brave new world of program budgeting and reporting is terrific but that we should retain the old system. I remember how we were told in opposition and in government that down the end of the track was a great new method. We would all have a great new reporting system. Everything would be lovely and we could compare things easily. We all accepted that there would be the teething problems that we have obviously had and to which Senator Vigor referred in this year's Estimates Committee in those programs which have gone over to program budgeting. But to hear now that really what we need is the old method and the new method provokes in me some sadness. With my strange logical thinking I wonder why the hell we changed if we have to have both. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.43) —I want to raise a fairly technical matter in relation to the report put down today by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh)-the Advance to the Minister for Finance for October. This is for moneys made available in supplementation of existing appropriations for specified purposes. My understanding of the payments made by the Minister for Finance from his Advance and which are the subject of these reports each month is that they represent expenditures of an unforeseen and urgent nature. Consequently, they should fall into that category. There is very scant information in the report to be able to make a proper appraisal of what is meant by the headings. One would expect some fairly ordinary items, described as administrative expenses, salaries and payments in the nature of salary and so on to fall within the normal category of expenditures and not to be describable as urgent and unforeseen expenditure. There are a number of examples, such as a payment of $200,000-a nice round sum-under the heading of `Arts, Heritage and Environment' for administrative expenses for the Australian National Maritime Museum. Similarly, under the heading `Attorney-General's' there is a payment of $240,000 to the Australian Legal Aid Office for salaries and payments in the nature of salary, and so on. Perhaps I misunderstand something but I would have expected to have been able to see listed in the report payments which would be less round in their number and more indicative of expenditures of an urgent nature which consequently find their way into this report. This is a matter of concern to the Parliament as in this way it gains control over expenditures undertaken by the Minister for Finance and paid out of his Advance. I just raise that matter and wait to hear what the Minister has to say in explanation. Perhaps I am on a learning curve but I would like to know a little more about the procedures undertaken. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.45) —So would I. This matter comes up every year. The usual explanation that I can remember is that the Supply Estimates are decided in March and as circumstances and decisions change this sort of matter arises, even in administrative areas. That is not a satisfactory explanation. I accept that. The Advance to the Minister for Finance for October came down only today. I will make sure that the Minister for Finance gives a more detailed explanation of each of those items. Perhaps we might even get a departmental officer to explain to the honourable senator and me just what this means. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Proposed expenditure, $818,629,000. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.47) —I want to mention a couple of matters concerning the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations mainly relating to the refusal of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to co-operate with the Opposition in providing information about the community employment program. He may well feel justified in doing so because he does not like the activities of the Waste Watch Committee, but it is most disheartening that the Opposition is being deprived of public information on the community employment program to which, I believe, it has every right to have access. The Committee is well aware that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives has been having a running battle with the Department over the provision of a simple computer printout of programs that have been approved under this scheme, how they have proceeded, and so on. The information is available. We received printouts until November 1984. Since then we have received nothing. There has been a battle with the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) about whether the Opposition should pay $400 for the latest printout request. I understand that that matter is going to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I say this in the context of departmental officers advising me on the telephone that they have been instructed not to answer questions from me as chairman of the Waste Watch Committee, as a senator from New South Wales, or under whatever hat I am asking the questions, and that all requests for information of this kind should go to the Minister's office. These are requests for public information-information available in most instances in Press releases, I understand. Whether the information is public, it is of a public interest nature and should be provided readily and speedily to the Opposition. If we are forced to ask specific questions-as I did, and I have a response to a specific question here today-this would no doubt involve the expense of digging out material from the large computer printouts. I assure the Minister that if he wants to avoid that expense all he needs to do is run through the total computer printout of all the grants made and we will happily do all the work-provided it is made available to us. As an example of the problem, because we are not able to do this work and are being denied this information by a government that allegedly believes in open government-we are being refused the opportunity to see what happens to the money granted under the CEP-we have to ask individual and specific questions. For example, I asked Senator Peter Walsh representing Ralph Willis, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, in the Senate back on 27 May the total funding for the arts through the community employment program over the past two years. That question of 27 May was answered on 3 October by Mr Willis in these terms: As at 29 May 1986, 697 projects were recorded on CEP Management Information System as being arts-related. These projects have been approved for CEP funding of $34.43m towards total project costs of $43.35m to create 3,227 jobs. That is not an insignificant amount. The second point is that that is totally inadequate information. We do not know for how long those jobs have been created. We do not know what the cost per week per job is. We do not know about the other elements. For example, how many capital assets have been bought to assist those projects-capital assets that remain the property of the sponsoring body? We are not told that. We are not entitled to know that. We are only members of parliament-senators or members of the House of Representatives. How dare we seek to get information relating to how $34m is being spent. The interesting final point in the reply from Mr Willis was that he said: The details sought on each these projects would require a substantial commitment of time and resources to compile, and I am not prepared to authorise the substantial expenditure which would be required to provide such a detailed answer. Great, we should not do it, he should just give us the basic material and we will do the work for him, if the Government is not prepared to do it, if it is so determined to keep this material secret, to put every obstacle it can in our way. It is absolutely disgraceful that it behaves in this way on this matter. I would be very grateful to hear what the Minister for Community Services thinks about it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.53) —As I think Senator Michael Baume will be aware, I do not know the exact details of the matters he has raised. I will certainly find them. But I can comment on some of the things he said. I have been in this place since 1974. A feature of my years in opposition in the Federal Parliament and as a member of the opposition party in State Parliament that I found most tedious was that information would be made available to members of parliament only through Ministers. That practice was not invented by my friend Mr Willis. In fact, it has been a practice in all sorts of departments since I have been in this place. I am not saying that I approve or disapprove of that; I suppose one has to judge why such decisions are made. I know that such a practice does not apply in my department, the Department of Community Services, but it has applied in other departments under governments of both persuasions. I have made speeches not unlike Senator Baume's whinging about it. Therefore I have some sympathy with what he said. I understand that there have been 20,000 projects under the community employment program and the amount of work required to answer his question would be considerable. If I understand rightly what Senator Baume said, the practice has changed since 1984. If that is so I will have to seek the details. The adviser here does not know the details. I will get the answer as soon as possible. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.54) —I would like to follow up one matter which I do not believe was satisfactorily answered during the Estimates committee hearings; maybe it can be now. It relates to the dispute between the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services and Wang Computer Pty Ltd over the contract to supply computer systems for the Job Seeker project. I would like to know whether the dispute has reached any type of settlement yet. The questions that I asked at the Estimates committee for the most part did not receive answers because court action between the various parties made almost all matters concerning this project sub judice. This is very disturbing when one considers that on 11 November this year Wang put out a Press release which stated, obviously correctly, that it was the first major computer and communications company to be awarded the Federal Government's new green and gold Australian made certification mark. It is obvious that Wang has a long term commitment to Australian manufacturing. Its products are being used within the Department of Social Security with, I understand, some degree of success. I was also able to see some of the products being used in Brisbane on a individual basis. This morning I decided to apprise myself of what Wang was doing here when I visited its Canberra manufacturing plant, with which I was highly impressed. I would be interested to know how this dispute is being resolved since a large part of it seemed to be related to the haste in the tendering process for the Job Seeker program. This brings in the problem which comes out of the budgeting process, which I would like to canvass. There was such haste because there was a need to apply for the available funds within a particular financial year. I would like to know what type of consideration the Government-I am sure the Minister will have some indications on this-is giving to the introduction of a system of rolling triennial funding for large development projects. This, of course, is extremely important for organisations such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and research and development organisations such as Telecom Australia, which of course funds itself. With large computer projects involving research it is very important to have a longer term view. It may be better to carry forward funding than to spend it at the end of the financial year. I would be very pleased to know what the state of affairs is on the Job Seeker program and how the Department is currently managing its computer operations in the light of the dispute between Wang and the Department. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.58) —As Senator Vigor is aware, there is a dispute between the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and Wang Computer Pty Ltd. Discussions are still being held but the dispute is listed before the Supreme Court next week. Therefore, I am in a sub judice situation and not able to comment. I understand his concerns. I am glad he visited the Wang manufacturing facility in Canberra. If he had looked on the wall he would have seen a very handsome plaque which said that I opened it. Senator Reid —You say that every time you get the chance. Senator GRIMES —Every time I get the chance I say that because I was Wang's biggest customer that year-in the whole world. Senator Puplick —And all they gave you was a lousy plaque. Senator GRIMES —All Wang gave me was a plaque on the wall and a nice pewter mug which I had to declare. I think we will all have to wait until the case is settled in the court next week or beforehand. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.59) —Firstly, having whinged about the Department I would now like to-- Senator Grimes —I'm sorry; I did not mean that in a pejorative way. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Having whinged about the Minister and the Department I would now like to acknowledge, as I should have done when I spoke before, the speed with which the Department corrected a situation that existed within the Commonwealth Employment Service relating to the treatment of people who sought male or female people specifically for employment in home environments. I refer in particular to someone who wanted a middle-aged female to be a nanny for children and who was sent a 29-year-old fellow with convictions for carnal knowledge. I commend the Department for the speed with which it ensured that that situation could not obtain again. The arrangements have been, as I understand it, totally fixed up. While I regret that a misunderstanding about the requirements of the State authorities on this matter of anti-discrimination led to this situation existing in the first place, I commend the Department for the speed with which it fixed it up. This Department is certainly one of the big spenders on promotion and publications. I note that last year $6.124m was spent under the public communications budget of the Department. I note that it put out a booklet called `The Accord-The First Two Years'. This was a blatant piece of political advertising of no merit whatsoever. It was inaccurate in detail. It spread a message which was garbage and which has been totally disproved. It stated that the accord was so brilliant that the Australian economy was able to rush ahead with great increases in growth and no serious problems, in total contrast to the rest of the economies around the world which did not know how to run things. There is a nice little table in this nonsensical booklet, which we all paid for, which, of course, has since been totally disproved. That bit of inane propaganda for this Government cost us $75,420, with a unit cost of $1.20. If a consideration is the quality of the content, we were overcharged by about $1.19 a copy. It is an absolute disgrace that this Government has got away with this kind of blatant political propaganda paid for by us. As I said, that one cost $75,420. I wonder what proportion of the sum of $6m being spent by this Department is expenditure of that disgraceful category. I understand that a lot of the other expenditure did, strangely enough, relate to training manuals and things like that, which are of some benefit. But I am convinced, having seen that booklet, that a proportion of this money is being wasted, and disgracefully wasted. I mention in passing that this Department is one of those which have a totally unsatisfactory record in the matter of invalidity retirements. Of the 33 who retired last year through invalidity, 16-just under half-retired because of mental problems and another six because of back or repetition strain injury problems. So 22 out of the 33 retired on bases which are very difficult to diagnose. I find that totally unsatisfactory. I mention the question of letterheads. I have raised this matter with some other departments. This one is incredible. The departmental letterhead, according to the Department-it is printed on 80 GSM bond-costs 0.001c per unit, according to the sheet I have here. This cost compares with the ministerial letterhead cost of 0.036c per unit. In other words, the ministerial letterhead is apparently 36 times dearer than the basic letterhead. The cost of the National Director's letterhead is 0.97c per unit-that is 97 times dearer than the price of the departmental letterhead. It is just incredible. The note I have here states: The high cost of National Director letterhead is due to two factors-two-colour format and low numbers purchased. If that is so, why waste money in this way? Why be so self-indulgent? What is the Government up to? I must say that this is probably the most blatant example of self-indulgence that I have seen in any of these departments. It would be nice to know why. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(6.05) —I will pass on to my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, the fact that Senator Michael Baume does not seem to like the document entitled `The Accord-The First Two Years'. Senator Puplick —That will worry him! Senator GRIMES —It will probably worry him a lot. I suppose I could compare it to some of the movies that we used to see in 1981 and 1982 after the Budgets were brought down. But it is too late in the afternoon for that sort of behaviour. I have become interested in the cost of letterheads since Senator Michael Baume drew it to my attention yesterday. I will certainly make some reforms in my Department. It has always been the case, apparently, that Ministers have embossed letterheads and fancy-looking stuff. My letterhead is embossed. I had better do something about that. But the paper is not the high quality paper that the National Director of the Commonwealth Employment Service has. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask why he needs a two-colour format when he has low purchases. I think departmental symbols on letterheads should mean something. If one looks at the letterhead for my Department, there appears on it what looks like a set of snooker balls. The biggest ones are on the bottom and the smallest are on the top. It is a reflection of the fact that the capacity decreases as one gets to the top of my Department, as does the power and the influence. There is also a more vulgar explanation within my Department, but I cannot repeat that for Hansard. However, I will refer Senator Baume's remarks to the Minister. I think I might refer his remarks on the various costs of letterheads to all departments. Senator Puplick —Refer them to Senator Walsh. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walsh is very interested. I think we will have uniform paper, probably manufactured by Sorbent, and the printing will be done by photocopiers. Senator MASON(New South Wales (6.08) —I would like to raise one matter with the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) which is perhaps a little more general than what we have heard lately, but which is of some interest in the community-that is, the current state of play following the statements by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the employment area on the question of work for the dole. I take it that since the Prime Minister's statements some discussion has taken place in the Department on this matter. I wonder what the state of play is. The community would be interested to know how far the Government proposes to go on this question, whether it has made any plans and whether it is considering any courses of action. I think at this stage it would be quite useful to know what those are, if they exist. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(6.08) —This area, as Senator Mason said, has created some considerable interest and also considerable emotion and heat in the community. My attitude and that of my colleagues is that it is certainly more satisfactory if people who are unemployed and cannot get work have the capacity to receive either a job or training. We also believe that the work test as it exists now-which means that people who will not take up work, who voluntarily become unemployed, or who become unemployed through misdeeds suffer some penalty-is the system we have had for a long time and we are not changing it. I make the point, though, that to expect this Government or any other government to insist that everybody in the community should work before they receive the unemployment benefit, when that work is not available or when those training facilities are not available, is unrealistic. The community volunteer program is being developed by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in this area. There have been considerable discussions between the Minister, the Department and various organisations as to how this will be extended. It is my understanding that the report is just about complete and that the Minister, on his return from overseas, wherever he is, will receive that report, will bring it to the Cabinet and, through that means, will bring it to the Parliament early in the new year. I cannot be held to that date but that looks like the expectation at the moment. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $723,995,000. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.11) —I want to raise a few matters in relation to the Department of the Treasury and particularly take up some points about the Foreign Investment Review Board which the Government is weakening through its removal of certain staff and also its determination to attract overseas funds into Australia at all costs. Firstly, I would like to follow through a recommendation of the recent Australian Science and Technology Council report on technology transfer mechanisms. On page 37 of that report it is said that the Foreign Investment Review Board requires subsidiaries of overseas companies to follow the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines on international investment and multinational enterprises which deal with research development and technology transfer. Is this being done as a matter of course or is the Government still considering its position in this area? In the answer provided about the scrutiny procedures of the Board there is a table of conditions applied to approved proposals. It is a fascinating table which points out that over three-quarters of these conditions relate to taxation matters and I seek leave to incorporate that table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- CONDITIONS APPLIED TO APPROVED PROPOSALS, 1 JULY 1985 TO 30 JUNE 1986 Type of proposal Acquisitions New businesses Total Number of proposals approved with conditions... 619 91 710 Conditions: Resale... 48 . . 48 Australian equity... 28 4 32 Taxation... 649 139 788 Periodic reporting... 52 5 57 Consultation... 15 3 18 Development and zoning ... 11 1 12 Environment... 6 1 7 Other... 39 5 44 Total... 848 158 1006 Senator VIGOR —I ask the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) for an assurance that the Board's ability to examine taxation implications of proposals will not be undermined as it sheds staff and functions under the budget cutting exercise. The other thing about the FIRB is that last financial year, after its recommendations, 32 conditions on Australian equity were imposed, compared with 51 and 56 in the previous two years. Obviously this is a decreasing set of conditions. This is attributed to both a greater awareness of the guidelines and the liberalisation of foreign investment policy in respect of non-bank financial intermediaries. I would also like to comment on the most important remarks made by the Commissioner of Taxation in the course of last week. I refer to his comments about transfer pricing rackets. This is a somewhat complex area when it comes to strong enforceable legislation and it has long been exploited by various multinational operations within Australia and around the world. The Australian Democrats, in our shadow Budget, actually proposed that it would be possible to get somewhere between $1.2 billion and $2 billion out of this proposal if we actively pursued transfer pricing rorts which were being perpetrated on the Australian Government. Vast amounts of money, whatever the figure is, would have been paid if the various people who are deceiving Treasury were actually pursued effectively. Mr Boucher pointed out that the staffing in the transfer pricing area will rise from 20 in 1983 to 161 in the forthcoming year. Last financial year the increased monitoring, because of the extra staff and the improved international co-operation, led to the recoupment of an extra $92m in tax and penalties. I believe that this is very much the tip of the iceberg and that there is plenty of scope for raking in large sums of money if skilled personnel are given the right environment and the most up-to-date equipment in their battle to ensure that taxes are not evaded by artificial pricing mechanisms. Senator Grimes has accused me of being a populist of the worst kind and never looking at money raising measures. Here we have an opportunity for the Government and Senator Grimes to raise $2 billion by actually getting these taxes from people who can afford to pay them but who have been avoiding them for a long time. I note with great interest that the Auditor-General's office has been examining the way that transfer pricing activities are pursued. On past performance we can expect a rather frank exchange of views when the efficiency audit report becomes publicly available. That is precisely what should occur because at least then the people of Australia and the Parliament will be in a position to demand that further resources will be effectively devoted to the battle against a major hidden modern day scourge or rort within the system. I also ask the Government what plans it has for pursuing negative gearing in company purchases which various journalists, such as Mr Ken Davidson, have suggested are the means by which a number of corporate raiders and takeover merchants are avoiding a considerable amount of tax which they would otherwise pay to the Australian Government. If these moneys were pursued, all the very small expenditure measures which the Democrats have said they wish the Government to continue, which are extremely important to the poor of Australia-the removal of poverty traps, the development and continuation of multiculturalism within Australia and the support of our farmers-would be able to be carried out. I ask: What plans are afoot to try to solve these major areas of taxation avoidance? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(6.18) —Senator Vigor started off his little speech by saying that the Government was determined to introduce overseas funds into Australia at all costs and he finished up by telling us about the modest expenditure that the Australian Democrats' proposals would cost. The last time I costed them in my area the cost was $4.5 billion. I do not think that is very modest, but others may. Senator Vigor mentioned the Australian Science and Technology Council report, which I am afraid I have not read recently and which my advisers here do not know about, and the efforts of the Foreign Investment Review Board which, he seems to think, is going to fall apart. I know that we have freed up the capacity of foreign investors to assist in the development of this country, but as for detailed matters of transfer pricing and negative gearing of takeovers, I will get answers for him. I am afraid that I have not prepared answers to all his questions and all the proposals put forward by Ken Davidson and others, but I will seek replies from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to the questions he has raised. All I can say is that, from my recollection in this place, revenue raising is very easy when in opposition but it is very difficult when in government. Cutting expenditure is very easy in opposition and is also difficult in government. I understand that the proposals the honourable senator has put forward are serious ones and that his concerns are serious ones, as are those of all honourable senators. I will refer these matters to the Treasurer. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(6.20) —I raise several matters that arise out of the Estimates committee inquiries and which remain unanswered or perhaps need some comment at this political level. Let me go through just a few of the more innocuous ones to start. First and foremost, in answer to questions on notice put by me, the Australian Taxation Office has replied to a question concerning costs associated with the preparation of an objection to an assessment being tax deductible. The answer given was no, and that comes as a surprise to me. I have not understood that to be the case for a long period. Indeed, it will probably come to the attention of people practising in the profession as something of real interest. The other point about this question is very important. The Government is now moving into a system of taxation by self-assessment which will obviously mean that there will be a long period when there is considerable doubt about assessments. Assessments will come some time in the indefinite future, no doubt with considerable discussion with the Tax Office as to the correctness of that assessment. Bearing in mind that over time there will be lost records, the need to research problems and to go back over old work, there will undoubtedly be considerable costs associated with assessments and objections on the part of taxpayers as they employ professional advisers in the future. Consequently, this seems to be an extremely unjust proposal in that in future people in that situation apparently will not be able to deduct for tax purposes the cost of doing the work on behalf of the Tax Office to prove that they have paid their full tax assessment. This is a matter of some principle and it is something that needs to be taken up in other forums and other debates. Of course the Opposition will be considering it as part of its taxation policy development in the weeks ahead. Another matter that also came as a surprise is that if a person seeks to have a taxation appeal referred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal the $200 that is required to be paid will not be tax deductible. If the appeal is successful there is capacity for it to be refunded. However, there will be considerable concern on the part of taxpayers about the $200 having to be paid up front in these circumstances and that that amount will not be tax deductible either. That is an enormous burden to taxpayers when one considers that, as I have just mentioned, they will also be forced to take care of the non-deductibility of costs associated with objections and professional advice obtained in respect of them. Another matter that arose during the Estimates committee debate and at earlier times concerns the new procedures now that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will become the body which reviews appeals for tax purposes. In the past the old boards of review used to undertake that task. I am interested in the matter of reasons being given to taxpayers when a decision has been made. I understand that in future the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will not be providing reasons when it makes a decision. I received an answer in writing from the Tax Office on the point I am seeking to make. The reply was as follows: On every review, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will give a written decision either affirming, varying or setting aside the decision under review. I would hope so. After all, that is its purpose. The reply continued: If it sets aside the decision it will either substitute its own decision or remit the matter for reconsideration. Reference is made to sub-section 43 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. The reply continued: If the Tribunal does not give its reasons in writing a party to the proceeding may, within 28 days of service of the decision, request written reasons which must be provided within a further 28 days. That is set down in sub-section 43 (2a) of the AAT Act. The reply further stated: Written reasons must include findings of facts and the material on which those findings were based. There is a further reference to sub-section 43 (2b) of the AAT Act. While the answer is not as clear as I would have liked it to be, I take it that it indicates that reasons are not generally available to taxpayers in circumstances where their appeals have been heard by the Tribunal. That means that taxpayers will be required to ask for the reasons to be drawn up and presented to them. They have a 28-day period in which to do that and the AAT has a further 28 days in which to set down those reasons and reply. I hope the importance of giving reasons is obvious to all honourable senators insofar as taxpayers, in order to preserve their rights, ought to have an opportunity of seeing quite clearly the reasons why the AAT has come to its determination in particular circumstances. That would enable the taxpayer to exercise his right to appeal to higher courts in order to have his case heard and obtain justice if he considers that he has not received justice at the AAT level. The point about reasons is important. I wonder what procedures the Tax Office will be putting in place in order to ensure that this matter is drawn to the attention of taxpayers as and when they submit their appeals to the tribunal so that the 28-day cut-off does not unduly infringe their rights. Quite clearly, given the way in which appeals will no doubt be handled, with advisers and the complications of transfer of information between officers of advisers and officers of the client or the taxpayer concerned and, of course, the Tax Office, 28 days is a relatively short period in which people can exercise their right to obtain reasons and so preserve their rights. I merely want to get clear what the Department will be doing to draw to the attention of taxpayers their rights in these situations so that they will be able to exercise them properly. I turn to one or two other matters concerning the Department of the Treasury and, in particular, the Tax Office. During the Estimates committee hearing we were very interested in trying to discover the procedures the Department went through in order to try to estimate the amount of tax revenue from the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the disallowance of entertainment expenses as a tax deduction. It is fair to say that we have had some rather inadequate replies. First of all, as far as I can ascertain we have had no reply in respect of the fringe benefits tax, and we have had a very inadequate answer on the disallowance of entertainment expenses. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator MESSNER —I hope that a few of the matters which I raised before the suspension of the sitting and which I will not reiterate will draw some comment from the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). The next matter I would like to raise in respect of the estimates of the Australian Taxation Office is the question of what kind of procedures were adopted by the Department of the Treasury to estimate the net revenue gain from the disallowance of entertainment expenses. During the sittings of the Estimates Committee C I asked officials how they estimated this amount. The key point I wanted to bring out was what allowance had been made in the estimate for the substitution of non-deductible expenditure-that is entertainment-with deductible expenditure of another kind, for instance advertising. The point at issue here is simply that, certainly from my experience in talking to businessmen about their plans immediately following the introduction of the legislation last November, it was clear that many expected not to continue to expend money on entertainment but to expend money on other marketing oriented projects, such as advertising, which expenditure would normally be tax deductible. Another instance, of course, might be that they would tend to spend money on overseas travelling expenses in order to promote their businesses and the marketing of their products. In this way they would merely change the emphasis from one category of expenditure to another but, of course, they would still get a tax deduction for the same amount of money. Consequently, the Tax Office will not collect the kind of revenue that it might have expected to receive from non-deductible expenditure because expenditure has been found to be deductible in another way. Apparently, from what I can see from the answer given by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the Department on this matter, such substitution has not been taken into account and I find that amazing. This would certainly lead us to conclude that the estimate of the Government in respect of entertainment expenses, which was something like a saving of $310m, will be, I think, substantially lower than that when all the numbers are done, quite simply because apparently those substitution factors have not in any way been taken into account in the Department's estimates. The next area of interest is the way in which the Tax Office calculated the amount of revenue to be gained from the capital gains tax. The answer to this question is really quite interesting. I thank the Tax Office for providing that answer in such detail as it gives us some idea of the way in which the processes within the Tax Office operate. For instance, we tried to estimate the amount of revenue from the capital gains tax by assuming that the Canadian model was a good place to start. Therefore, we assumed that such things as the rate of inflation and the growth rate in the value of real estate and other assets that applied in that country were reasonably expected to be applicable to Australia. The Department admits in its answer that `the methodology is necessarily very coarse'. That would have to be the greatest understatement of all times in terms of how the calculations are in fact addressed in this answer. Nevertheless, the short point to be made is that the Government estimated that in the year ended 30 June 1986 there would be no revenue from the capital gains tax which is, of course, to be expected since the tax would not have been fully in operation for 12 months. In the next year, 30 June 1987, it is also expected that there will be no revenue. In the year ended 30 June 1988 it is estimated that there will be revenue of $5m; in the year ended 30 June 1989, $15m; and in 1990, $25m. Be that as it may, it is interesting to note that many companies have already given indications to the stock exchange and other places that they expect that their liabilities in respect of the capital gains tax will be several millions of dollars in this first financial year-far in excess of the estimates that were set down in this reply. So quite clearly one has to consider the methodology by which the estimates were made in the first place to be very questionable indeed. This point raises several implications because the Government has been very careful to sell its introduction of this tax on the basis that it was not going to have very much effect either in the money market, the farming areas or other areas. Consequently, any increases in revenue which are expected over and above the amounts which were set down in the original estimates contained in the reform of the Australian taxation system proposals quite clearly are going to change the perception of the electorate about what the Government intended in this area. Quite clearly, the farming community for one might expect a substantially different result from what is expected by the Government and consequently will no doubt have to pay more capital gains tax than it might have been led to believe by this Government. Yesterday, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in answer to a question from Senator Black about land values, was keen to make the point when talking about the farming sector that farmers would not suffer substantially from the introduction of the capital gains tax simply because they have, on average, a very substantial equity in their properties. That might be so, but I read in this morning's Daily Telegraph that land prices have crashed in the rural slump in most New South Wales country districts. An article in that newspaper pointed out that the rural industry crisis bites deeper. I would like to make the point that while Senator Walsh and Government senators can stand up here and make the point that on average the farmer will not be affected because over many years the value of farming real estate has not varied significantly above changes in the consumer price index, the point has to be made that when there are severe changes in the economic circumstances of the country and the farming community, people are forced to sell their properties and, consequently, realise the capital gains inherent in those properties at a time when they are least able to defend themselves against economic change. Consequently, they do not conform necessarily with the nice neat average that Senator Walsh and Mr Keating have designed for them. As a result, the profits they make may well be substantially greater than the rate of inflation that might have applied. Everyone knows that land valuations and the valuation of other assets do not move along in some kind of pre-destined orderly pattern of development. They in fact fluctuate very greatly over time. Consequently, farmers in particular will be caught in situations where, because of their cash flow situation, they are forced to realise their properties right at a time when they are least protected by the capital gains tax law as it has been set down by the Government. I wanted to make a point about the way in which the fringe benefits tax has been levied against the various departments of the Government. It is interesting to note that the Taxation Office is paying some $477,000 to itself as a result of the imposition of the fringe benefits tax. One wonders about the logic or stupidity of such an effort. Senator Michael Baume —Is that still correct or have they had to change it again? Senator MESSNER —That is the figure I heard of last, but it could possibly have changed since then. Leaving that aside, the point I wanted to make was that clearly it is the wish of the Government that, where fringe benefits are provided to employees-that includes public servants working for the Tax Office-the benefits available to the employees be cashed out and paid in the form of salary increases rather than having them provided in the form of non-cash benefits. If that were so, the public servant or the employee receiving the fringe benefit would of course pay the tax on the benefit that he would receive. It is noticeable that government employees, in particular those in the Tax Office, apparently are going to have their tax paid for them by the Government. Consequently, that tax liability which would otherwise have fallen upon the employees themselves will in fact be paid for by the Government to itself. In light of the Government's stated wish in this place, as stated by Senator Walsh during the debate on the legislation when he said that all benefits should be cashed out and paid to the employees rather than maintained as a fringe benefit-that is clearly what the Government was intending by introducing the fringe benefits tax-why is it that the Government does not enforce its own rules upon its own employees and seek to relieve the burden on the taxpayer by making sure that the employee beneficiaries in fact are made to pay the tax that is due on their fringe benefits? We have seen cases where that has affected private sector employees. We note the case of the bank officials, who are kicking up some noise about those very circumstances. They either are having the benefits effectively cashed out or, alternatively, are losing them as a result of employers changing attitudes. I would like to know why the Government is not enforcing that rule which it laid down very heavily in this place as one of the reasons for the introduction of the fringe benefits tax. Finally, I want clarification on one point which I do not think we have received an answer to. I put a question on notice during the Estimates Committee hearing asking whether or not the Tax Office was aware of the circumstances of an employer in Western Australia receiving a tax deduction for taxes paid on behalf of an employee. If that did occur, that is something of an anomalous situation in light of the present law, under which the fringe benefits tax is not an allowable deduction to an employer who pays that tax to the Government. I have been led to understand that has occurred in a particular situation in the Pilbara in Western Australia. In that case a tax deduction was allowed for taxes paid in respect of fringe benefits following industrial action by a union forcing the employer to pay the tax on the fringe benefits. If there is an answer to that question I would be very pleased to hear it. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.15) —I do have some responses to Senator Messner's questions and they might be a bit more coherent if I give them at this stage. Senator Messner asked what procedures were being put in place by the Australian Taxation Office to inform taxpayers of their right to seek reasons in writing on decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The responsibility is, of course, primarily that of the Tribunal and it is understood that it has publications available for that purpose. At the same time, the Taxation Office recognises that it has a general responsibility for assisting taxpayers in understanding their rights when questioning assessments. A pamphlet explaining these rights is being prepared. I will ensure that Senator Messner is advised of the specific arrangements that will apply to inform taxpayers of their right to seek reasons for a decision made by the AAT. Senator Vigor asked what actions are being taken by the Taxation Office in the area of international transfer pricing. I am advised that this matter will be reported on in the annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation which will be tabled shortly. Senator Messner also asked a number of questions about the capital gains tax and taxation on entertainment expenses. Answers have been forwarded to Senator Messner, but I will take on notice those aspects of his questions which have not been answered and which appropriate further information will be forthcoming. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.16) —I would like to comment on a couple of areas in relation to the estimates of the Department of the Treasury which relate to the validity of the Budget Papers in terms of government spending. The Budget Papers, particularly Budget Papers Nos 5 and 6, raise an important question as to whether the figures published in the main Budget statistics, particularly insofar as government expenditure is concerned, are in fact an accurate indication of the spending by government, and in particular of the increase that has occurred in government spending this year. A couple of weeks ago I asked the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in this place whether there was not in fact an additional expenditure of approximately $1 billion-the actual figure was $2.9 billion-which was not recorded in the Government's calculation of expenditure and which did not feature in the supposed holding of spending in terms of the increases that were purported to have taken place this year by way of a nil real increase. At the time Senator Walsh gave me a very wandering-to use the most polite description-answer to my question. Having had a look at it since, I am increasingly of the view that the Budget figures this year are extremely misleading in terms of the real expenditure increase that has in fact occurred. The reason for my saying this will be clear if honourable senators look at Budget Paper No. 6. If they do their homework-it will have to be a lot of homework, because it is obscured in the presentation of the figures-it is possible for them to estimate how much additional spending has taken place. That is not shown in the main Budget figures because it is said to be offset against revenues specifically raised for that purpose; in other words, essentially it is the user pays principle. If one looks at those figures one comes up with a figure for this year whereby government spending is $2.974 billion higher than the actual published figures. That $2.974 billion represents in this financial year alone, 1986-87, $600m more than in 1985-86. If we take that into account in relation to the published figure for the deficit, the fact is that the Government's economic program this year has blown out so far as the Budget figure is concerned by $600m more than the figures that have been presented by the Government. If one goes back to 1982-83, the last year of the Fraser Government, one will see that the figure for expenditure offset against the revenue intake-in other words, the user pays principle-was $1.299 billion. The figure this year is $2.974 billion. In the four Budgets since the Hawke Government came to office there has been a blowout of $1.7 billion in the amount of money spent by government which is offset by increased revenues in the form of charges and things of a similar nature. That puts a totally different perspective on the Budget's claims to responsible economic management and the progressive reduction of the Budget deficit that the Government has been presenting over recent years. In fact, if one compares like with like, the Government this year, in terms of the reduction of the Budget deficit, is misleading the Australian population to the tune of $1.7 billion of deficit reduction which has not occurred. When one looks at how that $2.974 billion is made up, one sees how much more misleading the Government has been in the presentation of its figures. For example, in the figures for this year there is included under the Department of the Treasury an amount of $138m which is said to be the offset payments or transfer payments to the Treasury of fringe benefits tax paid by other government departments and agencies which are included in the Budget figures. First of all, it is extraordinary to find that $138m is the fringe benefits tax paid by government departments into Consolidated Revenue. In other words, it is Peter paying Peter to pay Paul, particularly when it is compared with the 1986-87 figure of $325m which it is said by the Government is to be collected from other than Federal departments. So $1 in every $3 to be collected in 1986-87 is to come from fringe benefits tax payable by government departments and agencies which are included in the Budget process. Even that portrays an overly favourable position in terms of the collection of fringe benefits tax from the private sector. Of the $325m which is said to be collectable in 1986-87 from other than the Federal public sector a significant proportion-the figures are not easily obtainable from the Budget Papers-is fringe benefits tax that will be paid by State and local governments. So what is very skilfully hidden in the Budget Papers is that for this year, and I assume, therefore, for subsequent years, a large proportion of this great hoo-ha that has been going on from the Government about the importance of fringe benefits tax results from the Government tax from one government area to pay into Consolidated Revenue. If the aim of the introduction of the fringe benefits tax was ostensibly-as the Government has repeatedly said it was-to make the tax system fairer, I fail to see how that possibly could be the case when one actually looks at the figures. The introduction of the fringe benefits tax has provided the Labor Government with yet another opportunity to go on a spending spree at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. There is no way in the world that this Government can refute the fact that the end result of the introduction of this tax will enable it to go on an increased spending spree. The point I am making-I believe it is a very important point-is that the Budget figures are totally misleading in the sense that they understate government spending this year by $2.974 billion and therefore throw into total confusion and certainly total questioning the macroeconomic parameters on which the Government claims its Budget was based. The Government claims that the overwhelming part of this $2.974 billion to which I am referring is due to increased movement towards the payment of fees for service. How on earth can one say that the $138m fringe benefits tax paid by some government departments into Consolidated Revenue and therefore showing in the figures of the Department of Treasury is an increased fee for service? If we are looking at increased fees for service I would be interested in knowing how it is, for example, that the Department of Communications in 1986-87 will have a fee for service figure of $210m when only last year, 1985-86, the figure was $41.7m? How on earth can the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services go from $185m last year to a collection this year of $231m? How is it that the Department of Resources and Energy can go last year from $40.86m to a revenue offset against outlays this year of $88.75m? How, on the other hand, can the Department of Trade possibly go from a figure last year of $15.67m down to a figure this year of $10.18-in other words, a fall of $5.5m-at a time when we are told that the Department and Austrade will be out there charging fees for service adopting the user pays principle, and commercialising more the activities of the Department of Trade? On a similar basis, how can the revenue collection of the Department of Transport relative to its outlays possibly have fallen this year as the figures show, by $17m? There are an enormous number of hidden traps in the presentation of the Budget figures this year which have not been revealed. The first time these figures were revealed publicly was when I revealed them tonight. It is incumbent on the Government to explain to the Parliament, and through the Parliament to the Australian people, what it is on about with the apparently major fiddling of the Budget figures. Senator PARER(Queensland)(8.31) —I would like to follow up the remarks made by Senator Short. I also refer the Minister to a question which I asked in an Estimates committee hearing but to which so far I have not received a reply. I believe that the question is critical and is a question in which everyone is particularly interested. The question I asked in respect of the fringe benefits tax was: What was the estimate by the Department of the Treasury or the Australian Taxation Office of the revenue that would be collected from Federal, State and local governments and their statutory authorities and the private sector? The taxation officials at the Estimates committee hearing, either by design or whatever, were unable to answer many of the questions asked. The way in which those officials treated the members of the Estimates committee was quite appalling. I hope that I do not see a repetition of it in the future. I repeat: The question I asked was: What was the estimate by the Government of the revenue expected to come from Federal, State and local governments and their statutory authorities and the private sector? Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.32) —As I recall, the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury is a Director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. Serious concerns have been expressed in the Sydney business community and were reported in the Australian today relating to alleged attempts by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to politicise the administration of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation by endeavouring to force upon it his own nominee from outside the bank to become its Managing Director to succeed Mr VernChristie. The appointment of the Managing Director of the Commonwealth Bank is the Government's prerogative. The Government has the right to appoint whomever it wants to that job. The tradition has been that, as the quality of management within the bank has been so great, only people from the bank have succeeded to that job. That tradition has been important for morale within the bank, particularly in view of the inadequate salaries paid by the bank compared with those paid by the private sector. It is evident from the very good results that have come from the Commonwealth Bank that it is well managed and has done remarkably well, despite its inadequate capital base, which Mr Christie pointed to last year. The Government's expenditure restraint limited its ability to provide the Commonwealth Bank with the sort of capital base from which it could operate adequately in the current very competitive environment. Within that constraint the Commonwealth Bank has done remarkably well. There is no suggestion that the management of the bank is inadequate. On the contrary, its performance shows that it is very satisfactorily managed. Why then is there any trouble at all? Why is there this hassle? Why is there the current Board disputation? Why is there Treasury pressure on the bank concerning this matter? Why has the Board been having lengthy meetings? Why is there so much disquiet within the business community in Sydney about concerns that the Treasurer is seeking to politicise the bank by appointing his own nominee from outside the bank as its Managing Director? This raises the general question about governmental control of the bank. There has been much discussion about this matter. Is the Government going to see the Commonwealth Bank as its pawn, as a bank that does the Government's bidding on political issues rather than what it always has been considered in the past as being-a commercially viable organisation with integrity and its own spirit of independence, which competes properly in the market without excessive concern for the political policies of its owner? If the Bank is to continue to function in that way, obviously the attempts by the Treasurer to change that course should be strongly resisted. There is a need, which appears to be developing quite strongly, to diminish the power of a government that has a Treasurer such as the current Treasurer who would seek to dictate to this bank. There is now on two grounds a need to diminish this power. Last year the ground was an inadequate capital base. Now the ground is the apparently unsatisfactory pressure from the Treasurer. These two grounds now combine to increase the merit of the Commonwealth Bank making some kind of issue of shares to extend is ownership, perhaps to its clients, its staff, or both. Senator Grimes —This is what you are really about. All that stuff about the Treasury is nonsense. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I can see no reason why this Government should say to the people of Australia: `We deny you the right to hold shares in your own bank'. Senator Grimes —Well, why did your previous Government not do that? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I can see no justification, on moral or any other grounds, for that kind of nonsense. Senator Grimes —Why did you not do it? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The Minister falls back on the classic response that goes to every matter: Why did you not do something about it? Senator Grimes —You were in government for 30 years, for God's sake. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Exactly. It has now become evident from the current massively increased competition in the banking environment that there is now no justification for the present oppressive situation of the Commonwealth Bank which we can see emerging from the Treasurer's interventionist role, and the lack of a capital base which Vern Christie complained about last year. Maybe the Minister has been asleep and has not noticed, but there has been a dramatic and radical change in banking in Australia. Senator Ryan —Who brought it about? We did. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I am overjoyed that the Minister has interjected in that incredible way. She has no doubt forgotten that when her Government came to power the first thing it did was to cancel the call for applications for a massive increase in the number of banks in Australia. It was one of the Government's first activities. Applications were called early in January 1983, as she well knows, following an inquiry which we held and to which the Australian Labor Party violently and consistently objected. The Labor Party violently and consistently objected, through its spokesman, to the whole concept of increasing the number of banks and allowing foreign banks into Australia. One of the first actions of honourable senators opposite was to cancel the applications and the requests for applications for up to 10 foreign banks, in a duplicitous move. Having refused to provide the consensus which honourable senators opposite say is essential for radical change, and having been such an irresponsible and opportunist opposition that they would not accept what was proper and right when we tried to do it, they cancelled those applications. Their opportunism and dishonesty in that matter was incredible. How can those opposite now pretend in the Senate that they have purity coming out of every pore? I suggest that they examine their pores much more closely. We gave those opposite the consensus on this matter that they refused to give us. Their leader uses this word `consensus'. He says that there must be consensus to do significant and dramatic things which involve radical change. We have been responsible where Government members have been opportunists. They have behaved in a disgraceful way, creating political barriers to the proper change which they proceeded, in an incredible way, to bring in and claim credit for, having cancelled our first endeavours to do so. The behaviour of those opposite is as opportunist and disgraceful as it has been on all the promises they have made, none of which they have kept. Let us hear no more of this absolute rubbish that we keep hearing from their side. Either they do not know the reality or they have the sorts of convenient memories which allow them to feel honest when they make that kind of statement. The Commonwealth Bank in the changed environment that exists here is at risk if we have a Treasurer who will impose on that bank his external appointee because he wants that bank to follow more closely the devices and desires of the so-called Messiah. Let us recognise that this bank has as its major objective the need to look after the best interests of its clientele, the people who do business with it. If the Treasurer thinks that he can move into that bank and impose a different set of objectives, with the first objective being to meet the Government's political requirements rather than its customers financial ones, we must resist him to the full and make certain that the sort of scandalous behaviour that is going on at the moment is exposed to public view. This fight has been going on for some time. Vern Christie was supposed to retire at the end of this year. That has been forced to be deferred, as is known throughout the business community in Sydney, because unreasonable pressure is being applied by the Treasurer to appoint his own person rather than someone who has come up through the bank. I cannot speak highly enough of the people within that bank. Unfortunately, there has been a high loss of senior executives because the pay at the higher levels is appalling compared with pay provided by other banks. The Commonwealth Bank provides a very large number of highly skilled financial operators around the business community, particularly in Sydney. There has been no criticism whenever we have been talking about the need for an issue of shares to some section of the private sector, its shareholders or customers that the bank is badly managed, because it is not. It is a well managed bank. That is one of the reasons why it is absolutely vital to resist any attempts by the Treasurer to subvert that management. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.44) —I believe that publication of the Year Book for 1987 has been suspended-I do not think that many people are aware of this-as a Government cost-saving measure. Employers of all industries, large and small, right down to the smallest, are forced to give information to the Australian Bureau of Statistics at considerable cost to the majority of them. If, in 1987, they are not to get any value from the statistics-and there is considerable value to the majority of industries which use the statistics for planning their business-will they be asked to supply statistics for 1987? I presume that the area is not being ignored altogether and that the Government will not consider it to be far too costly to gather the statistics that businesses are forced to give. But if they are not being made available to the source from which they come can the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) tell me just what will take place? Can she also tell me where in the Budget Statements this information was made available to the public? Where is it listed in the Budget Papers? I have not been able to find it. Do the people of Australia know that the statistics that they are giving will not be made available to them? I repeat: Can the Minister tell me what is taking the place of the Year Book? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.46) —The statistics for 1987 will continue to be collected. There was no specific announcement of the decision to suspend the publication of the Year Book as a cost saving measure in the Budget Statements. It was a cost saving measure within the staffing and publishing allocation. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.46) —I asked many more questions in that regard. Will the Minister please tell me, as there was no mention of it in the Budget Papers, how the public is meant to know about it? Has the Government made sure that people know that the statistics that they are being forced to give now will not be made available to them? What announcement has the Government made to people and, since people are giving information, what will take the place of the Year Book, so that people and industry can plan according to the statistics that have always been made available? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.47) —I draw the attention of Senator Walters to the publication of the annual report of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. On page 10 she will find a description of the number of publications issued during the last financial year. That number totals 1,650. Only one publication, the Year Book, a summary of all the other publications-sort of an overview collection-has been dropped. All the information is available in different publications. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.48) —The Minister is still not answering the question. What announcement has been made to the people of Australia that no Year Book will be available in 1987? That is the first question. If the Minister cannot absorb two questions I will ask the second after she has answered the first. Senator Ryan —Why don't you ask the second question? Senator WALTERS —I have done so twice and the Minister keeps ignoring it. What will take the place of the Year Book is the second question that I keep asking. There are two questions. What is taking its place and what announcements have been made to people that it will not be available. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.49) —The Bureau of Statistics has informed its clients that the Year Book will not be proceeded with this year but there has been no general announcement. With respect to how people can find out what is going on I refer Senator Walters yet again to the annual report of Australian Bureau of Statistics which describes the number of publications issued during the financial year. That number is 1,650. Only one publication has been dropped. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.49) —Again I ask the Minister because she did not answer my second question-could she please answer it?: What is being supplied to the people of Australia instead of the Year Book in return for all the statistics that they have been forced to give? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.50) —Madam Temporary Chairman, I have informed you, the Committee, and therefore Senator Walters, that there was no general announcement about the fact that one publication out of a total of 1,650 was not being proceeded with. I also informed the Committee, including Senator Walters, that the clients of the Bureau were informed about that. Senator Walters —That is not the answer to the question I am asking. I am asking whether anything is replacing the Year Book. What will be made available to the people in replacement of it? I have asked now a half a dozen times. Senator RYAN —As I have already informed the Committee, all the information which is gathered by the Bureau is published and therefore available to the public in a very large number of publications-in excess of 1,600. All the information that is gathered is available via that very large number of publications. The purpose of the Year Book was to bring together a consolidation of statistics which are available to the public in other publications. That particular consolidation will not be available but all the other separate publications containing all the other statistics will be available. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.51) —I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) whether she can answer the question I asked earlier in connection with the cashing out of fringe benefits for the employees of the Australian Taxation Office. What is the Government intending to do about it? Senator Ryan —At this stage of the tax changes it is the Commonwealth's intention to pay fringe benefits tax for its employees where that is required. Senator MESSNER —In all cases, not only for the officers of the Tax Office? Senator Ryan —Yes. Senator MESSNER —In that case I draw attention to the remarks of Senator Short which were relevant in that he made it clear that of a total of $500m that the Government expects to collect by way of the fringe benefits tax, roughly $140m will come from the Government. Consequently, the kind of money which the Government expects to come from private sector and other sources will be substantially less. That means that the figure that will be collected that we have heard bandied about as being so vitally important in order to give people tax cuts-a figure of $500m, $600m or $700m, depending on whom one listens to-will be far less, of the order of $300m, if that. That pales alongside the commitment that the Government has given to allow tax cuts of $4,500m over the next two years. Senator Short has absolutely shattered the Government's claim by pointing out here tonight that $300m from the fringe benefits tax will not allow everybody in Australia a great big tax cut. That claim is absolute rubbish. Clearly, the Government is spending $2m on telling the people of Australia the out and out lie that they will get tax cuts as a result of the fringe benefits tax. Those advertisements, which are still appearing, are offensive and obviously incorrect and fallacious and they ought to be withdrawn. They do not tell the truth about the tax situation of this Government. More and more we find from replies to questions asked by the Opposition during Question Time and at Estimates committee hearings that the Government has been misleading the Australian people over what it is intending. The truth of the matter is that the tax cuts of $4,500m which it intends to give to the people on 1 December-and perhaps if we are lucky on 1 July next year, which we have grave doubts about-are merely giving back to people the money it has ripped off them because of inflation and its failure to adjust tax scales over the last two years. That is all it is about, the Government giving back to people what it has already taken from them through inflation. It has nothing to do with tax equity or changing the incidence of taxation at all. That is a lie and it continues to be a lie that this Government perpetrates and it should withdraw the mendacious advertisements which it continues to run which tell the people untruths. There is just one other question I would like to ask the Minister: Does the Government intend to introduce a tax on superannuation funds investing their moneys overseas? Senator Ryan —There is no decision to comment on in that respect. Senator MESSNER —There is no decision to comment on? There is a lot of comment going on in the community about it and I want to know what the Government's intention is. The Minister should be able to tell us here and now whether the Government is contemplating such a move to put the problems and the worries of those in the industry to rest. Senator Ryan —There is no reason for Senator Messner to give voice to any rumours that are going around the community in that respect and there is no action on that front at all. Senator MESSNER —Does that mean the Minister is telling us there is no tax to be introduced on superannuation funds investing overseas? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.57) —What I am saying is that there is no such decision and there is no decision under consideration to that effect. Senator Messner —Nowhere within the Government is there any decision under consideration? Is that right? Senator RYAN —Madam Temporary Chairman, the advice I have is that there is no such proposal before the Government. I do not want to say any more than that. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —That is the answer for you, Senator Messner. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.57) —That gives us great concern. Thank you very much, Madam Temporary Chairman, I think we know the answer. Senator Ryan —You are very easily concerned. You listened to all that nonsense that Senator Short raised. Your concern does not bear any relation to anything that is happening in reality. Senator MESSNER —I think the Minister should have a close examination tomorrow of the Hansard to see what Senator Short said a little earlier. Perhaps then she could give us an appropriate answer after she has given full consideration to the matter. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.58) —I did not intend to respond to Senator Messner's essentially political rave but I do need to place on record that I do not accept the figures that were put forward by Senator Short. They are Senator Short's figures; they are not the Government's figures. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.58) —I think it is terribly important that we give the Minister the opportunity of looking at the Hansard tomorrow and advising us whether those figures are correct. As I understand what Senator Short was saying, he had checked the figures with the Department of the Treasury and found that they were correct. It was a question of argument as to how the matter was to be presented. I think he made that point very clear, that the Government was understating its total expenditures and consequently was not giving us the true picture about the finances of the country. We would also like to hear arguments on that. If the Minister disagrees she should point out where she considers Senator Short to be wrong. He raised numerous matters. It would be a good idea if the Minister would return to the Committee tomorrow to tell us where she thinks Senator Short was wrong in his analysis. Senator Watson —They have two sets of books. Senator MESSNER —As Senator Watson suggested, maybe the Government is running two sets of books. It is running two sets of standards in the way in which it imposed the fringe benefits tax, for instance. I raise one other point in relation to the superannuation proposals of the Government. During the Estimates committee debates we made inquiries of Mr Stuparich of the Department of the Treasury who was apparently responsible for superannuation fund arrangements. This was in the context of the Government's intention to go along with the trade union movement's pressure for a 3 per cent superannuation payment in the next productivity case. The point we were examining with Mr Stuparich was whether the Government was in a position to set up its interim arrangements on the control of superannuation in the next six months. Of course, it was the original decision of the Government to move in the area of superannuation from 1 January this year. The point that seemed to emerge from the discussions with Mr Stuparich was that the superannuation arrangements would not come into force or be applicable until 1 July 1987, whereas the Treasurer, Mr Keating, of course, had been telling us that the superannuation arrangements would apply from 1 July 1986. Quite apart from all the doubts we have about the way in which the scheme will operate, can the Minister inform us now as to the Government's intention with regard to the superannuation case and the productivity case? When does it intend to establish the necessary machinery to undertake the regulation of superannuation funds? In what way will it handle, for instance, the problems that arise for the self-employed under the section 23fb arrangements? Is the Government intending to proceed with superannuation arrangements in conjunction with the productivity case? Senator SHORT(Victoria)(9.02) —Senator Ryan made a few comments a couple of moments ago-I confess that I did not hear all of them because I was not in the chamber-in relation to some figures that I mentioned in my earlier remarks. As I understand it, she cast doubt on those figures. I say to the Government that, while I do not stand by every dollar of those figures, most of them have been drawn out of the Budget Papers, namely, Budget Paper No. 5 and Budget Paper No. 6. I have compared them with the figures in Statement No. 1. I am convinced that the figures are essentially correct, at least in the sense that they understate government spending this year by $2.974 billion and therefore are a considerable understatement of the underlying deficit, if one takes the figures as a whole. Compared with the figures for 1984-85, that represents, in effect, an increase in the Budget deficit of $600m. I urge the Government to look at the figures I have raised tonight and the proposition I have put. I strongly request an answer on those figures-although not necessarily tonight, of course. I contend that the figures I raised tonight throw very considerable doubt on the veracity of the proposal this Government has put in its Budget this year in terms of its deficit, the reduction in the deficit and the effect that that has on the total macroeconomic policy making of the Government. I contend that, on the basis of the figures contained in the Budget Papers, when one analyses them, one finds that the Government has tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian community in terms of the responsibility it has exercised in regard to its Budget making parameters. If I am not right, I would like to know where I am wrong. I totally reject any proposition by the Government, without an adequate response, that my figures are incorrect; I do not think they are. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.05) —I notice that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) does not intend to comment on my question on superannuation. Senator Walsh —You got the answers at the Estimates committee hearing, I am told-on 1 July 1987. I am told that it was answered at the Estimates committee hearing. Senator MESSNER —Well, it was not. It was hinted that that might happen, but I understand that to be a political decision, since the Treasurer, Mr Keating, has been nominating 1 January 1987 as the starting date. I was not aware that the Minister, during the Estimates committee hearing, had made that statement. I required a political statement from the Minister as to when he thought it would happen. After all, I though that the Government controlled these matters. Senator Walsh —Is this for the establishment of the OSC? Senator MESSNER —Yes. Senator Walsh —It is 1 July 1987. Senator MESSNER —In that case, can the Minister tell us what arrangements are to be made for self-employed people? Are they to be incorporated into the productivity arrangements? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.06) —I think Senator Messner is getting nearer to a policy area rather than a question of-- Senator Messner —That is why I am asking the Minister. Senator WALSH —He will not get an answer from me about things like that. The Government will present a submission to the national wage case which, among many other things, will deal with superannuation. Senator Messner —Can I ask when that will be? Senator WALSH —Next week, I think. I am not sure. Senator Messner —Can I ask whether that submission will be made public? Senator WALSH —As I understand the proceedings of the Commission, if it goes to the Commission, it is automatically public. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Primary Industry Proposed expenditure, $220,224,000. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.07) —Earlier this year there was apparently quite a deal of bureaucratic dispute about how to develop a national chemical notification and assessment scheme. Eventually, I understand, a ministerial committee was formed to determine what type of scheme would result. I would be very grateful if the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) could give me some information on where the matter now stands with respect to such a national chemical notification and assessment scheme. We have not heard anything since the ministerial committee was set up. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.08) —I am checking my recollection of the matter with the officials. It has not been finalised yet. I have been to at least one meeting on it, but it is still not finalised. Senator Vigor —Does the Minister have any idea on the time scales in which we can expect some type of reporting back? Senator WALSH —Within six months, probably, but I would not guarantee that. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.09) —During the consideration of the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry, attention was drawn to the very high compensation rate. The number of claims equalled about 30 per cent of the work force of that Department, which is an incredibly large proportion. When this matter was raised during the Senate Estimates committee hearing, it was pointed out by the Department-in fact, an answer to a question on notice was given to me in writing-that when examining compensation claims from the Department of Primary Industry staff, it must be realised that approximately 70 per cent of the staff are involved in inspection duties. These duties take place mainly in abattoirs in an environment which is noisy, wet, slippery and has a great deal of movement of slaughtered animals. Following that Estimates committee hearing, and following advice from the Department that knife cuts represented about 29 per cent of compensation injuries, and slips and falls about 28 per cent, I received notification from a company called Shannon Industrial Painting and also from Vessey Chemicals Pty Ltd that some abattoirs have resolved this problem by applying a non-skid epoxy to the floor. I wondered whether the Department had examined this non-skid flooring for meatworks, in view of the clearly unacceptable level of compensation payments being required to be met, I presume out of the public purse. I do not know whether the inspection fees charged to the meatworks cover this very high level of compensation payment and I simply wonder whether the Department has a view of the benefit or otherwise of seeking to have this non-skid flooring applied in appropriate areas where there is evidence of continual injury. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.10) —I am advised that there is an ongoing departmental health and safety policy and that that suggestion will be considered in that context. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(9.10) —Why is it that the Department of Primary Industry was one of the few departments that could not answer questions on the fringe benefits tax other than to refer such questions to the Australian Taxation Office? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.11) —I understand that there is some material here but that it will take some time to look it up; so, if it is all right, that answer will be supplied in writing. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(9.12) —Why is it that it takes so long for research to flow through to the end user? There is a delay of up to two years in respect of some of the research which has been done in the field. It does take quite a long time to flow through to the end users and I would like to know the reason for that. Senator Walsh —What sort of research? Senator BROWNHILL —Research into bloat control, for example. Bloat is something that cattle suffer from if they eat in pastures that are high in legumes. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.13) —In the days when I read a bit more agricultural literature than I read now, I thought the general supposition was that it took about 10 years for fairly clear research findings to be actually common practice in agriculture. I do not know what is the reason for that. I suppose it is partly the lack of readily available information and partly the natural conservatism of farmers-some might even be unkind enough to say in some cases the stupidity of farmers. The Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry does not accept any responsibility for extension work as that is a function of the State departments. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(9.14) —Apparently the requirements for the clearance of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are set out in the Department of Primary Industry documents. Document PB310B sets out the requirements for clearance and that is what I am talking about. Is it a bureaucratic problem that some of the research is not flowing through quicker to the end user? Is it a governmental problem or is it something to do with some other department? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.14) —Apparently I misunderstood the earlier inquiry. The question is about the time lag between the clearance of a new chemical or drug for the treatment of animal complaints. I do not know very much about it but there are procedures which must be gone through over a reasonable period of testing and assessment. Maybe it can be legitimately claimed that that process is longer than it ought to be, but there does not appear to be anything readily available about that. I will see whether the Department or Mr Kerin has any further response to make. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $510,115,000. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.15) —There are a number of matters which are provided for in the vote of the Department of Communications, but I will address this evening only the new decisions made by the Government in terms of the aggregation of broadcasting areas in Australia. When the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Special Broadcasting Service amalgamation legislation is before the chamber we will have an opportunity to debate a number of matters arising within the ABC. Therefore, this evening I will only reiterate the concerns that have been expressed by the Opposition about the method by which the new Chief Executive of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was appointed, to indicate once again the very unsatisfactory nature of the way in which the ABC has conducted its affairs and in particular the sloppy management which has been evident in all levels of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. One certainly hopes that this is going to alter significantly in the future. Shortly the Government is going to be faced with the decision of the appointment of a new Chairman for the ABC. Just as my colleague Senator Michael Baume has discussed this evening the question of the politicisation of appointments to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, we will be watching very carefully the question of the way in which appointments are made to the chairmanship of the ABC because, quite clearly, for the first time the Government has already installed a political operative in the position of Chief Executive. If it now intends to install a political operative in the position of Chairman, the indication that the Opposition has already given about the amalgamation of the ABC and the SBS will only be further shown to be justified. This evening I want to direct my remarks primarily to the decision announced by the Government for the creation of new approved markets for broadcasting in Australia in the commercial sector. As I said earlier today, the original decision of the Government was that there would be six of these approved markets which would be brought about by the process of aggregation. It was expected that there would be two markets in Queensland, three in New South Wales and one in Victoria. We now see that that has been reduced to one in Victoria, two in New South Wales and one in Queensland. I make the point in particular about Queensland because I think that the Government has embarked upon a series of decisions with regard to broadcasting in Queensland which will turn out to be a disaster for that State. I indicated earlier today that, in attempting to establish the new approved market to be known as approved market A in Queensland, the Government has opted for what it calls a three-service market in which the Cairns-Townsville stations, FNQ and TNQ, the Mackay station, MVQ, the Maryborough station, SEQ, the Rockhampton station, RTQ, and the Toowoomba-Warwick stations, DDQ and SDQ, will in fact be collapsed into one general market. The Cairns and Townsville stations are to be entitled to broadcast throughout the whole of that region. However, the Mackay station is to be permitted to broadcast in the service areas of Cairns, Townsville and Mackay; the Maryborough station in Rockhampton, Maryborough and Darling Downs; the Rockhampton station in Cairns, Townsville, Mackay and Rockhampton; and the Toowoomba-Warwick station in Maryborough and Darling Downs. One of the consequences of that-I think this to be a most retrograde move on the part of the Government-is that, while it expands the service area for a number of those broadcasters, in relation to both Maryborough and Darling Downs those broadcasters will have their service areas cut back. In fact, they will lose market, audience and service areas. I do not know of any particular case which has occurred before in which a broadcaster has had his area of responsibility, his market, redefined downwards. The people who have investments in the Maryborough station and the Darling Downs station are entitled to ask, as I now ask the Minister: Why has the Government made a decision that of all the television stations in Australia those two should be singled out to have their markets cut down? I cannot find any real reason why those two stations have been singled out of all of the broadcasters in Australia to have their market share reduced simply by an administrative decision which the Minister announced, I think, last night. The second point I want to make about this new aggregation arrangement is the rather extraordinary way in which Tasmania is being treated. As I said earlier today, what is happening is that because there is common ownership of the Hobart and Launceston broadcasters the Government will seek some inducement for the licensee to consider selling one of his stations. The statement which the Minister put out in part says: If the licensee chooses not to sell, then the Minister will invite applications for a new commercial television licence to cover both Hobart and Launceston service areas. Frankly, my understanding is that the commercial viability of such an operation is highly questionable. If one looks at a very good speech made yesterday in the House of Representatives by Mr Warwick Smith, the honourable member for Bass, one sees that he made the point that, whereas the Government has already altered its approved market proposals on the basis that it accepted the argument that a viable market should be a market of approximately one million persons for three stations, it has now come to the decision as Mr Smith pointed out that as far as Tasmania is concerned a population of 450,000 is expected to support three commercial stations. In the rest of Australia it has been determined that one million is the correct figure. I believe that the Government ought to provide us with some further information as to how it has come to that decision. In the statement, which is now one of government policy, two other areas need particular attention. The Opposition expresses its opposition to the method of the so-called one in, all in trigger which is being introduced by the Government. In effect that means that the Government has determined what are to be amalgamated service areas. It said that within those service areas any number of different operators will be brought together. They may be three in number or six in number. What we will do is bring about a situation in which any one of the persons in the designated area in the approved market will have the capacity to force the aggregation of television services within that approved market regardless of the views of all of the others in the designated area. So one person may trigger considerable expense, considerable activity and considerable inconvenience for the other people who have been aggregated, not by their own decision but by some form of ministerial fiat. In Queensland, presumably, any one of the six or so operators can trigger a process whereby all of the other operators have to get into the aggregation and are denied the other alternative which is proposed, that is, the multi-channel services route which is provided elsewhere as an interim measure towards the Government's stated goal of equalisation of television services through the process of aggregation. I agree with another comment made by Mr Smith that the 28 days in which people have to respond to determine whether they propose to take the MCS route, otherwise they will be adjudged to have opted for aggregation, is altogether far too short for people to make the sorts of commercial decisions which will have to be made. When we have the debate on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 some of these issues will be capable of further elucidation in the debate. However, for the purposes of this evening's exercise I simply ask one question of the Minister representing the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and that is: Why are the Maryborough and Darling Downs stations being specifically singled out in this situation and why have they had imposed upon them a reduction of their market share, a reduction of their service area and, consequently, by ministerial decision, a potential reduction in their profitability and capacity to provide the sorts of services which they have been providing in the past and which, undoubtedly, they have been planning to continue to provide in the future? Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.26) —I will speak just briefly to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 and to the appropriation of $510,115m for the Department of Communications in Group C. I wish to voice one or two matters. Perhaps when one looks at the overall amount of the Department's budget appropriation of some $510m the matter I bring up tonight is trivial but certainly to the people of the outback it cannot be considered to be trivia. The development of communications in Australia over the last few years has been tremendous. The Department of Communications, Telecom Australia, Aussat Pty Ltd, Radio Australia and all the organisations that have been responsible for the development of communications within Australia and, for that matter, overseas are to be congratulated because overall they have made a very fine effort. Many people think of communications as they relate to the outback as just trivia; perhaps they think they are just trivial. But, of course, the outback is Australia. The mining developments, the pastoral developments, and the farming developments bring wealth to Australia. Of course, these industries and people in the outback require communications. Over the years they have lapsed to quite a degree because, naturally, sophisticated measures of communication have developed particularly within the cities, and one can realise that. Millions of people live in the densely populated areas and to a degree there has been a period when communications in the outback have been very much wanting. Over the last few years there have been considerable changes and those changes are taking place now. We now see, whether it be on an Aboriginal settlement, cattle station, mining field, pastoral homestead or a little town way out in the outback, that things are changing. However, very many matters still need correcting-at least if they do not need correcting they need some more attention. I will speak very briefly on one or two of those matters. Only a few days ago I spoke about the annual report of Aussat which was tabled on 11 November. I indicated then that the advent of the Aussat satellite operating above Australia will bring communications in so many ways to the people, particularly those of the outback. I also spoke briefly about the experiment that is taking place in Mount Isa-the Mount Isa School of the Air. A leaflet on the school stated: In a major breakthrough for distance education, eight students from outback north west Queensland are taking part in a high-tech trial using satellites and computers. The year 6 students, all veterans of the School of the Air, are linked to Aussat and can talk to each other and their teachers instantly-a far cry from the days of hand-held radio and horse and buggy travel. In my speech, I said: The specially chosen year 6 class of eight children from various parts of outback Queensland have this voice and data satellite network. They also view a regular television program transmitted from the Brisbane studios . . . It is pointed out that there has been a very noticeable change in the children who use this high-tech equipment. I believe this is an excellent program. Perhaps-and this is the question-the experiment that is now taking place in Queesland will have a bearing on the future of kids in the outback. But will the service be continued? I know of the problems facing the Government in respect of financial commitments and all of those sorts of things. But I think there really has to be better communication with the people of the outback. The Government has to give an indication of the future of the School of the Air. Will there be sufficient finance to see through the experiment that is being conducted in Mount Isa? High-tech equipment is being used to bring audio and visual services to the kids way out in the bush. Will we see the end of this service when the experiment closes in the first or second week of December? There is some disappointment in the outback in respect of this matter. As I said before, this is not a criticism of Aussat. However, there was a hope that Aussat was going to bring to the people of the outback and the School of the Air the very high-tech service that is the subject of the experiment which is taking place now in Mount Isa. The people of the outback envisaged that their kids were going to have visual television and high-tech voice-all of those things that were going to bring the kids in the bush into the classroom of the towns and the cities. Senator Grimes —What is non-visual TV? Senator KILGARIFF —Perhaps I might have made a small error in the words that I used. However, I think it is rather trivial to bring up a mistake that I might have made. I am concerned about the service that the people of the outback expected to get. When Aussat was established it was envisaged that many dishes would be required and purchased so that this service could be brought to the outback. As I understand the position, there is a reluctance by many people in the outback to buy dishes because at present it is proposed that only television and not telephone and high-tech voice reception will be provided. I think the people of the outback want to know what their future is going to be. I think it would be a good communication exercise if the Government told the people what is going to happen once the School of the Air experiment in Mount Isa closes down. I would like to refer briefly to one other matter that concerns me. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions of dollars, is being spent by Telecom Australia on very sophisticated equipment to bring communications to the people of the outback. I believe that Telecom is doing a very good job in this respect. In the next few years we will see the old radio telephone, which involves sitting with one's finger on the button waiting for the red light to come on so that one can take one's turn, phased out. Instant telephones are being provided in quite a few places. I am absolutely annoyed, as are very many other people, when I see sophisticated Telecom equipment in Arnhem Land which, as I said before, does not run into hundreds of thousands of dollars but perhaps millions of dollars, not being used. This equipment is to be used to provide telephones so that the Aboriginal people in the settlements in Arnhem Land will have instant communication. Senator Mason —This is theoretically. Senator KILGARIFF —I point out to Senator Mason that this has not happened, even though the equipment is available. This very magnificent, expensive and sophisticated equipment has been sitting there waiting to be installed because negotiations have to be held with the Northern Land Council in the Northern Territory for a lease of Aboriginal land on which the equipment can be installed. This equipment will benefit Aboriginal people who deserve, as much as anybody else, instant communications. This has not happened because, as I understand it, the Northern Land Council has held up the negotiations for land on which the equipment is to be installed at a cost, if not to the taxpayer, certainly to Telecom. The equipment has not been able to be installed because of a dispute over how much Telecom will pay for the lease of Aboriginal land. As I said, this equipment is to be used to bring communications to isolated Aboriginal people. Senator Mason —It would appear that Telecom is more important than this Parliament. Senator KILGARIFF —I am not too sure what Senator Mason is muttering about. If he wants to make a speech, he can do so. But I am saying that I think it is wrong that the Aboriginal people in the outback should be denied this facility and that the installation of the expensive Telecom equipment should be held up just because the Northern Land Council wants to extract a certain amount of money from Telecom. To me, there is something radically wrong with the system. I am all for sophisticated equipment being installed in the outback and Aboriginal settlements. But I would suggest that Telecom and, I suppose, the Australian taxpayer-the Federal Government anyway-should not be held to ransom by people who say: `Before you put this facility in you have to pay us ransom money-if not ransom money, then lease money-before we will allow this equipment to be installed'. I think this is a very unfortunate situation. As I have said, Telecom is doing a very good job in bringing communications to the people of the outback. The two points that I have brought up tonight may be trivial to some people. However, it is very wrong that the people of the outback, who are waiting anxiously and impatiently for instant communications, should be treated in this way. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(9.39) —I listened to Senator Kilgariff with interest because I respect his view of the world. But I cannot agree with him if he says that Telecom Australia is considerate or appreciative of this country. When we look at Telecom's last annual report we find that something like one half of what it cost it to provide services was, indeed, the cost of providing telephone services to this country. I would have thought that Telecom has a basic function to provide a telephone service to the Australian community. Apparently Telecom is not there for that purpose. It is there firstly, to provide, a telephone service to this country, and secondly, to provide free diaries to thousands of people all over Australia at Christmas time. It is there to provide community services- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator MASON —In fact it provides not only one but two free diaries. Senator Puplick surely has got them. I have asked Telecom not to give them to me. This is Telecom I am talking about. Senator Kilgariff —What does it do between Christmases? Senator MASON —I do not know what it does between Christmases. What I am saying to the honourable senator-this is a serious comment-is that something like 14,000 selected people in Australia are provided with not one, but two, free diaries by Telecom. Senator Brownhill —I do not get them. Senator MASON —Does the honourable senator not get them? I get them and I have asked not to get them any more. Senator Brownhill —Maybe you are getting my share. Senator MASON —Maybe I am getting the honourable senator's share, but I have no wish to get his share. All I am saying is that Telecom is grossly transgressing its functions. According to the last annual report, something like a quarter of a billion dollars went on executive costs this year. I would like to know where those costs come from. Telecom's job fundamentally is to provide telephone services to the citizens of Australia. What it actually does is provide one of the most inefficient and most expensive telephone services in the world. Let us face that. We have a bureaucracy of incredible power- Senator Archer —A what? Senator MASON —A bureaucracy of incredible power. Does the honourable senator want me to write that down? I hope he will agree with me. Senator Archer —I just wasn't sure what you were slurring. Senator MASON —I am sorry, that was my view. It is something which I think this country can tolerate no longer. I looked at Telecom's last annual report only today and saw that Telecom's profit for the 1985-86 financial year was $80m more than for the previous year. In addition, Telecom's profit was something like one half of the cost of providing telephone services to this country. How long can we go on tolerating this kind of nonsense? Telecom is a thoroughly inefficient bureaucracy with, I think, sufficient voting power to influence the Government because it does not want to disturb it. It is inefficient compared with the telephone services provided by other countries, and frankly it is indulging in this country in a rort so inefficient and so bad that it should no longer be tolerated by us. I have hesitated to bring this forward. As I have said, I would have approved of Telecom if it had carried out its ordinary function of providing a telephone service because that is what it is there for, but it has abused that function grossly. I gather some 14,000 copies of Telecom's last annual report have been sent out. I was most distressed to see the report. It has in it a grossly unnecessary colour photograph element. I counted today 64 photographs of Telecom's administration and staff. I cannot see-I ask honourable senators to agree with this-that there is any necessity for that. Somewhere a photo- grapher was let loose around the staff of Telecom to take pictures and put them in the annual report, which is a very expensive document. Senator Brownhill —I have it. Have a look. Senator MASON —Senator Brownhill has a copy of the report. Look at it. I shall show it to the chamber. It has colour pictures. What is the necessity for having pictures such as those in an annual report? Senator Archer —Does it comply with the Publications Committee recommendations? Senator MASON —I do not care what it does. Here we have pictures of lots of ordinary people. I cannot see why Telecom should spend public money in that way. We are here on a gut issue, discussing the provision of telephones which is putting a cost on the average citizen of this country. Everybody has to pay for his telephone. It is a fact that people pay a damned sight more for their telephones in this country than they should. I am going to send a letter to Telecom stating: `Please do not send me expensive desk calendars-not only one, but two-with little brass corners on them'. I cannot see any virtue whatsoever in that being done. Senator Puplick —Tell them to send it to Ms Kirkby. I am sure she could make use of them. Senator MASON —Ms Kirkby is getting younger with every day that passes. Do not underrate Ms Kirkby. Ms Kirkby can deal with Senator Puplick any day of the week. Let us get back to the question of Telecom. This is a serious matter and one which I think is of some concern. Telecom's total revenue is something like $5 billion. The annual report for Telecom last year shows that the cost of providing telephone services to the Australian people was something like $1.5 billion. I ask honourable senators to check my figures on that. I may be out in fine figures but I think they will find that I am pretty right. In other words, here we have an organisation which is incurring a cost of $1.5 billion, and it is charging this community $5 billion for its services. This is not good enough. It is something we have to look at. It is not good enough to say that this is merely the Public Service carrying out its ordinary rorts. It is something which affects every Australian. This has been a public scandal in this country for many years and I think it is time we came to grips with it. I would be glad of the Minister's comments. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.46) —I rise to make several points which arise from the Estimates committee hearings and answers I got from the Department of Communications. I can state definitely that the $2m saving this year from the proposed Special Broadcasting Service-Australian Broadcasting Corporation merger has been nailed as completely fatuous. Senior officers of the Department of Communications and the ABC made no bones about this during the Estimates Committee hearings. The Acting Secretary to the Department, Mr Payne, at page 541 of the Senate Estimates Committee C Hansard, was to the point when he said: I think the savings envisaged by the Government in the decision were really projected for the future; they are not savings of immediacy in relation to this year's proposed appropriations. So we are in fact being misled. Not one attempt at an accounting of the claimed $2m has appeared amongst all the various hopes for the future in statements by Ministers and the Public Service. In fact the Government appears to be cutting $1m off the budget of the ABC and another million off the budget of the SBS. They are separate organisations and, if the legislation to merge the two does not get through, the amalgamation will not happen. Another point of interest is just how little has been spent-I think this is scandalous-on improving SBS reception in Melbourne and Sydney. Only $140,000 has been spent on rearranging the ultra high frequency transmitting antennas since 1982. Eighty per cent of that was spent in Sydney, and in a similar way $165,000 has gone towards infill translators between 1981-82 and 1985-86. I note with interest that $700,000 has been set aside for that purpose in the next two years and that there will finally be some coverage surveys carried out to identify the shadow areas of SBS reception for both those cities. The shadows are much worse with UHF reception than with very high frequency transmission. The fact that the Government has seen fit to spend so little on the problems in Sydney and Melbourne, while it has extended services elsewhere, shows that there are people who are quite content that SBS should continue to have major reception problems, which have been complained about in various areas. It is rather unfair when people are using the viewing figures for SBS as a means of assessing the effectiveness of that television channel. I would like to refer to the disastrous policy mismanagement of the Department over the supplementary licence scheme, which has now basically folded. Millions of dollars have been poured down the drain because a number of independent applicants believed that they should be given a fair go in this particular area. Some excuses were related to the shortage of engineers in the Department, but there seems to have been a policy decision not to do anything over the long period when this supplementary licence scheme was operating. Now we are being faced by Government proposals which Senator Puplick so aptly debunked in a previous speech. I would like to look at the problems which beset the Department of Communications, particularly the shortage of engineers in the Department. In September, 42 of 95 positions in the engineering department were unfilled. I believe that this is a major problem for the whole broadcasting industry. The communications strategy division and the radio frequency management division had half or less of their positions filled. This is a serious matter for the people of Australia. This may go part way towards explaining why the video and audio information and entertainment services issue was totally mishandled by the Department, and it seems to have overtaken it. It may also explain why the Department was asking the Attorney-General very plaintively whether it could put a moratorium on pay television under the current legislation. The record of that advice was that fresh legislation was needed. That was one interesting thing that the Estimates Committees learnt. If the Department itself was mystified by the meaning of its own legislation, what hope is there for the rest of us? I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the answers I got about the engineering resources. They should eventually be drawn to the Minister's attention. Leave granted. The document read as follows- SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE HEARING OF FRIDAY 19 SEPTEMBER 1986 QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE Question asked by Senator Vigor (Hansard page 562) ``How many engineers do you have currently? . . . I see there are 23 new ones. I would like to get on notice the shortfall in each of the departments. If we could have that, it would be helpful.'' Answer: The Department currently has 53 of the 95 established engineer positions filled, with a shortfall of 42 engineers across the Department. Details of the current situation in each Division is as follows: Broadcasting Policy and Planning Division-Establishment 8, Positions Filled 4, Shortfall 4. Communications Strategy Division-Establishment 10, Positions Filled 4, Shortfall 6. Radio Frequency Management Division-Establishment 20, Positions Filled 10, Shortfall 10. Broadcasting Services Division-Establishment 45 (Canberra), 12 (State offices), Positions Filled 35, Shortfall 22. Summary: Establishment 95, Positions Filled 53, Shortfall 42. Whilst no Department can expect to have its establishment fully staffed, the Department of Communications is facing a serious shortfall in engineering resources. The Department is endeavouring to recruit and develop 23 base grade engineers to overcome the difficulties it, in common with all other Departments, has experienced in recruiting experienced middle level engineers. Included in the numbers identified above are four base grade engineers who have been recruited since June 1986. It is planned that a further six will join the Department shortly. The remaining thirteen engineers will join the Department before the end of this calendar year. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Committee. I add that the policy sections of the Department are really ripe for review by some type of efficiency scrutiny unit. Time after time the development of a client mentality in the Department takes over. Basically, the Department seems to respond and jump to attention to both the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations and the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters and ignore the services to ordinary Australians. We really have to do something about that rather quickly. For instance, we have a deep freeze currently on new public broadcasting and on commercial radio. This seems to be the case while the Government and the Department spend a few years sorting out the regional television shambles that seems to have developed. The Adelaide community broadcasting group, 5SKY FM, has written to me to indicate that it will be able to commence full time broadcasting by July of next year but that its application may not be handled by the Department until late in 1987 when it will then be dealt with by the tribunal's open public processes which can take an enormous amount of time. It is the same for other applicants, for public broadcasting and commercial radio licences. The policy sections of the Department have set their back on technological convergence and can expect to have events overrun them again in the future. I asked about what has happened to the Davidson Committee proposals that radio communications and wide communications be brought into a single Act based on common principles. The Department looked at the proposals and I quote from the reply. It stated: The Department's assessment was that it was trying to deal with two incompatible subjects within one Bill and we did not favour at that time any amalgamation of the two principles of broadcasting and the general principles of radio communications. I wonder when the Department will reconsider in the light of continuing developments which are starting to make the distinction between radio and television almost redundant. The Department runs the risk of again being caught with its pants down as economic pressures for new services develop. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has many excellent innovative broadcasters who struggle against all odds. I sincerely hope that the new Managing Director will be able to restore the levels of trust between management and other staff which are essential to revive the organisation. Mr Hill, who appears to be a political appointment, will have to find a way of dealing with the obstructive dead wood within the ABC. There does not appear to be very much help in this area. I want to go into some detail about one non-answer received by Senator Brownhill which is indicative of the brick wall against which heads are being bashed. Senator Brownhill asked for information about a Budget period publication from the ABC staff union which was accompanied by a media release that read: The report prepared for the union by the economic consultant Mr Mervyn Smythe suggests that the ABC funding predicament had been grossly distorted by implicitly overstating the Corporation's capital expenditure by a total of $200m over the last 10 years and by $40m in 1985-86 and by $60m in 1986-87. What the Committee received was not a detailed response to this report but to one prepared in April. I find it alarming to get such a mix-up. The material in the April report and in the ABC's response shows that the ABC is cutting its own throat. This is happening at a time when the Government's lack of imagination is calling it to wind back activities it once supported in that area with some enthusiasm. It is indeed fatal not to present a case in the strongest possible terms. This is what happened after the ABC fiddled with the figures on its expenditure. It actually abandoned what it had been putting in the annual reports from 1976-77 through to 1983-84. By using an index series system based on a spurious first figure which was understated it got into terrible problems with capital appropriations. The issue involves the comparison of like with like. In 1976 to 1977 the ABC was given a consolidated Budget entry. Prior to that, the acquisition of land and the construction of buildings was done for it under other line items. To get an accurate comparison of capital funding, figures for 1975-76 and earlier need, in fact, to be adjusted for expenditure to be carried out by other sections of government including the Department of Housing and Construction-or the Department of Housing or whatever it was called then. This was done routinely in annual reports right through to 1983-84. If this is not done the figure for 1975-76 is about one third less than the true comparison. Put another way, one has to increase the inaccurate figure by 50 per cent. That of course completely swamps any time or index series which includes an inaccurate figure for 1975-76. The Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission quite clearly made this point about capital cost comparisons in its report. It becomes somewhat of a mystery why the ABC submission broke totally with the accepted practice, and with what the ABC had previously put out officially. The only explanation, and the revised presentation in the 1984-85 annual report seems to bear this out, is perhaps that management wanted to emphasise capital expenditure of late and contrast it with spending on salaries. Perhaps it meant to demonstrate some new discipline within the ABC. I fear it is just likely to get the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance to seek to prune its capital expenditure. In the material supplied to the Committee this was the reason given for not adjusting the 1975-76 capital expenditure figures to get an accurate comparison. I quote: It is true that making this adjustment makes the chart more graphic . . . However, it was considered at the time that the unadjusted figures provide a more unequivocal presentation of the basic case, with no room for argument about the validity of any adjustment. We need to note that there was never any argument about the validity of the adjustment, so there is a real problem. I seek the Minister's view on how we handle the creative accounting of the ABC. The ABC having put on to the public record this type of self-swindle presentation, I seek from the Minister some understanding of what is being done about changing the accounting procedures the ABC uses to report to the Senate. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.01) —I raise a couple of points which would have been of some interest to Senator Walsh had he still been here. I regret that he is not. The Committee will recall that last year Senator Walsh and I had something of a disagreement about the cost of forward cover for the foreign exchange exposure of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which was almost $53m and involved a loss to the ABC of $12.8m as a result of a refusal by the Department of Finance to allow the ABC to take up its desire to forward cover against its foreign exposure. It is interesting that at the time Senator Walsh claimed that it was not necessarily correct to assert, as I did, that forward cover would have saved the ABC the bulk of the $12m loss. He quite wrongly suggested to the Senate that the cost of such forward cover could have equalled the amount of the loss. That is utter bunkum and I established it to be bunkum at the time. Following the receipt of a letter from the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, on 17 September this year-he has at last answered the matters I raised in May, I think it was, of last year-we can now see that the cost of cover would have been only a tiny fraction of the loss incurred. The Minister and his Department were quite wrong and, I believe, foolish in preventing the ABC from covering. We have discovered from the 19 September hearing of Senate Estimates Committee C that the cost of forward cover on selected contracts entered into by the ABC in the 1985-86 financial year, from January 1985 for a very short period of four or five months, was only $79,764. Major savings resulted from that very small expenditure. The suggestion by Senator Walsh that the cost of cover would have been $12m was absolute rubbish. The exposure could have been covered by less than $80,000. The cost of exposure for the 1986-87 financial year, which is not revealed but which I presume is well over $40m or so, is $140,589. It would be nice if we did not have to put up with bunkum, along with personal abuse sometimes, when matters of this nature are raised in the Senate. I am concerned that in the current environment of changes being made at the top of the ABC there has been a tendency for continual criticism of the ABC on the basis of ratings. It is said that the ABC is obviously failing to perform because of its particularly poor ratings. I am disappointed to hear that the new Chairman of the ABC-who in other matters, for example, his determination to continue playing soccer at his age, cannot be all bad-is making value judgments on some of the ABC programs based on some rather unreasonable criteria. Most media outlets advertise heavily to encourage viewers and listeners to view and listen to their programs. Radio station 2UE in Sydney has just run a monumentally unsuccessful advertising campaign costing multi-millions of dollars to attract people to its programs. I understand that the station is now for sale. By comparison the ABC has spent very little on promoting its programs on the commercial media from whom it has to attract viewers and listeners. In the Senate Estimates Committee hearing it was revealed that the total cost of ABC television advertising on commercial media outlets last year was $1.4m. This covered publicity in all States for the national network and utilised all available media outlets, including the Press and the electronic media. That is a very small proportion of the cost of providing its services and making its programs and is certainly very small by comparison with the other media outlets which are being held up as being successful in comparison with the ABC. Before there is all this loose talk about the need for radical change in many ABC programs we should consider whether adequate promotion of those programs would provide a better result, if ratings are what it is after. It seems unfair to judge, for example, ABC radio and its listeners on the basis of a promotional cost of advertising on commercial media outlets last year of only $643,000, which was made up of $350,000 on television commercials promoting Radio National, ABC FM and ABC metropolitan stations and $235,000 on newspaper advertising promoting ABC radio coverage of specific events such as the Commonwealth Games, the Boyer Lectures, rugby league and so on. This sort of expenditure is very small for a multi-million dollar organisation which spends enormous amounts of taxpayers' money on providing programs of a very high quality. Some services have diminished slightly in quality for a variety of reasons but it is not reasonable to dismiss the ABC because of falling ratings when a commercial approach is not being applied to a sufficient degree to give many of these programs a fair go. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.09) —I want to raise two fundamental points. I have had continual representation from my electorate that Telecom Australia persistently will not allow subscribers to check what they owe Telecom. This is a matter of great basic importance. If we have a public instrumentality which spends the money that it does and persistently maintains that it is not possible for it to afford to tell people the details of their telephone costs, we have something that is very much less than adequate. If we have an organisation which is making something like half a billion dollars a year profit and yet says to the people it is supposed to serve `We cannot afford to tell you whether your telephone charges are legitimate unless you pay us something', we have something much less than adequate. This matter is of importance to millions of people. Of those millions of people, many have come to us and to honourable members in another place and complained about the situation. They feel, and rightly, that they are being imposed upon by a government-supported bureaucracy which can say it will do what it wants and if it does not want to tell people what they owe it will make its views known, not theirs. In any reasonable society this is not rational, fair or possible. I ask the Government, through you, Mr Chairman, to change this and to recognise that it has a monster in Telecom which has grown out of all proportion, which is asserting itself and arrogating to itself beyond the normal requirements of this community and which at this stage has to be contained. I am distressed that time and time again members in the other place and honourable senators here have said what I am saying now. The result has been that absolutely nothing has been done. I ask the Minister: Does he regard Telecom as a $5 billion bureaucracy which is more important than this Parliament and apparently does not have to take much cognisance of what this Parliament and its members say? I ask that as a direct question and would like the Minister's reply because there is evidence that that is what Telecom is. If we allow huge Public Service bureaucracies of this kind to exist and exert this kind of influence, we are taking this society into a very bad and wrong area. I ask the Government seriously to consider this. If the Minister and the Government believe that it is the prerogative of this community to decide by its vote who shall be the Government and what policies the Government should have, it is quite wrong for them to allow a bureaucracy-no matter how numerous its staff and how great its electoral value might be-to develop which usurps that function. That is the first point that I want to make. It is a clear enough question and a plain enough issue. I do not have to deal with it further. It requires a reply from the Minister. My second concern is about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. For many years I was an employee of the ABC. I worked in radio and television. I know damn well that it is difficult to turn out a good radio or television program without having the confidence of one's superiors. That is the first point. Point number two is that a good television or radio program is very dependent on the amount of money spent on it. In other words, by inhibiting the amount of money provided to the ABC the Government will, in effect, restrict its ability to compete with the commercial networks. Senator Grimes —Oh, yes! Senator MASON —I am glad that the Minister agrees with me. Senator Grimes —No, the honourable senator should sit down so that I can reply to that. I come from Tasmania, as does Senator Newman. You will hear about that. Senator MASON —I have not finished yet. I want to make the point that, because of the deductions permissible to private enterprise for business expenses, commercial television and radio services cost just as much as does the ABC. The Minister will find that that can be demonstrated. Therefore, the ABC should not be seen as being in any kind of separate category. It is a service which, without complications, attempts to do something of value for society. Commercial networks do the same. I am aware of the value of programs such as Sixty Minutes. They have tremendous value but they are assessed financially in different ways. All I am saying is that the Government is not seeing the ABC fairly, in right and proper financial terms. It sees the commercial services costing nothing and the ABC as costing something. That is not true. That is not really what happens. I would like the Government to reassess its priorities in those terms. The second point I want to make about the ABC is that I am deeply concerned about the appointment of Mr David Hill. I have no objection to Mr David Hill as a person. Long ago, he and I were members of the Australia Party. He might not like to be reminded of that, but it is a fact. He is a person of great value in the community but I am concerned that he has been put into the ABC by the Government as a kind of whip to chastise the ABC. This point has not been made just by me. It has been made by other people. The Government ought to take it seriously because if it has done that it should not think that it will get away with it. The Government should not think that there are not people in the community who recognise the value of the ABC and its independence to the community. It should not think that it can destroy the ABC with impunity. I have more respect for the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is in the chamber, than to think that he could not see that. But he is not the only member of Cabinet. I hope that those troglodytes in Cabinet-and there are those in the Labor Cabinet, believe me-who think that they can destroy something, run over it and steamroller it to make it do what they want, will find out about this. Senator Grimes smiles. He plainly agrees with me. Senator Grimes —I am a very quiet and smiling fellow. Senator MASON —I ask Senator Grimes whether he agrees with me. Senator Grimes —No. Senator MASON —He does not agree with me. That is the answer that I would have expected. The point is that what I say is true. Some people in the Labor Cabinet think that the ABC properly is a government instrumentality that ought to do what they want. I suggest that that is not good enough. The Government should vary its instructions to Mr David Hill and let him allow the ABC to continue on the course on which it has proceeded for the last three years. Let us look at that course. Fundamentally, the ABC over the last five or six years has been a much better organisation than it was before. It has produced some extremely valuable and important programs. The Investigators is a good program. It has done something of value for the community. The Minister should believe me that the ABC would not have produced that program 10 years ago when I was a minor executive of it. The ABC has produced some very good drama programs which are much better than those produced before. The ABC has brought on some very good satire programs, such as the Gillies program. It is healthy, important and useful to the country that the Gillies program be there. From what I have heard from certain people with whom I am still acquainted in the ABC, I know damn well that Mr David Hill has been placed in the ABC to see that programs such as the Gillies program do not occur again. That is a stupid, arrogant and quite incompetent attitude of the Government. Senator Grimes laughs, therefore I invite him when I finish speaking to deny what I have said. At least we will have established a point of some importance that the Government will allow that kind of satire and that degree of independence in the ABC to be preserved. Although the Minister laughs, I assure him that what I am saying will be of some importance to this community over a long time. I invite the Minister's comments on what I have said. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.18) —I am a bit taken aback by Senator Mason's comments. I am a very great supporter of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and public broadcasting. I come from Tasmania and I am proud of it. I am glad that Senator Newman is coming back into the chamber because perhaps just for a few seconds she will agree with me. I would like to see an efficient and effective public broadcasting organisation in Tasmania. I will tell honourable senators about the ABC in Tasmania. In Tasmania it has 475 employees, I think. It has one television station and two radio stations. Senator Mason —Tasmania is not the centre of policy. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator should wait a minute. I listened to him. Tasmania has two commercial television stations and I do not know how many commercial radio stations-Senator Newman and I can probably think of six or seven. The total employment of those organisations is 300-175 fewer than the ABC. To make it worse, Senator Newman and I come from Launceston-- Senator Mason —A very beautiful city. Senator GRIMES —A lovely city. The trouble is that one does not get much television coverage from Launceston. I am a Minister from Launceston, Senator Newman's husband was a Minister from Launceston, and both he and I had great difficulty appearing on the ABC because one could get on the ABC only if one was from Hobart. It is a very difficult problem. A couple of weeks ago Mr David Hill did a very radical thing in Tasmania. He said: `You have 475 employees here. I think you could probably get rid of about 30'. There was a terrible riot. I got letters saying: `If this happens the local coverage will be reduced'. I wrote back saying: `I come from Launceston. I am not conscious of any local coverage on television at all'. There are different perceptions of the ABC depending on from where one comes. People in the north-west of Western Australia are very impressed with the ABC because it is the only service they get. They were very impressed that they got Wagner's Ring every Sunday night for six weeks. The people who benefited the most from that were the local video stores. So there is a problem with the ABC. Senator Mason lives in Sydney. He would watch Wagner every night of the week for the whole year. He would be very impressed by that. He would like to watch the Gillies Report every week. That is fair enough. David Hill, the new Managing Director of the ABC, I would just gently point out to Senator Mason, was actually appointed by the Board of the ABC. Senator Mason —I am well aware of that. Senator GRIMES —Senator Mason said he was a Government appointee, the Government was instructing him and all that sort of thing. Senator Mason —I think he probably is. Senator GRIMES —Senator Mason would not repeat that outside; he will say that in here. But he can get up and make that sort of comment. Senator Mason also did not like Telecom very much. Senator Macklin —You got that impression! Senator GRIMES —I got the slight impression he did not like Telecom very much because Telecom will not tell him every day of the week how many phone calls he makes. Telecom writes people letters saying that in the last month there has been a great increase in phone calls made. The trouble is that Senator Mason does not read his mail. The simple fact is that Telecom provides a communications service in this country. It provides telephone services for people who live 25 miles from the main road, or five miles from the main road, in a demographically and geographically very diverse country. It does this very efficiently. When one goes overseas to the most densely populated countries of the world one finds a less efficient service. Let us not knock Telecom in the way in which Senator Mason does. What he is about is wandering in here late at night and having a crack at all the public authorities he thinks he can have a crack at. Senator Mason —No, I am not. I quoted from the annual report. Senator GRIMES —Senator Mason did not quote from anything except his own imagination. However, I realise it is late at night so we will leave Senator Mason and move to Senator Vigor. Senator Vigor asked a question which took 15 minutes to ask. Senator Archer —What was it? Senator GRIMES —I do not know what it was. He started off making statements which suggested that he did not think much of the Department of Communications. I got that distinct impression. Part of the problem was that the Department had not approved a licence for his friends in Adelaide. I am very sorry about that but I do not know the facts. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal actually looked at the facts, considered the facts and did not approve the licence. Senator Vigor can get up and argue about that all he likes. We are dealing with the estimates under Appropriation Bill (No. 1). We are supposed to talk about the Bill before the Parliament, but we are talking about problems in Senator Vigor's little corner of Adelaide. God help us if he ever got elected to the Australian Capital Territory, which I gather he will try to do, because he would be in here every night talking about the garbage services and everything else in the Australian Capital Territory. At times I find it very difficult to know whether Senator Vigor is asking a question, making a comment or what he is about. I will look at the Hansard. I will ask the departmental officers to look at the Hansard and if they can discern what the question is and the facts that are required I promise Senator Vigor that we will do our best to get him an answer within the next couple of days. But we are dealing with the Appropriation Bills. We have gone through the Estimates committee hearings-endlessly. Some of us sat until three o'clock in the morning. We have been very generous with our time. Every time Senator Vigor wanted to come to an Estimates committee hearing we welcomed him with open arms. We have not prevented him from asking any questions. We have been tolerant in listening to the questions he asked. We have been very tolerant in our answers. But, for heaven's sake, at 25 past 10 on a Tuesday night, if we are going to go through 15-minute questions and statements about what Senator Vigor thinks of the Department of Communications, we all have to tolerate it. There is no way that I can shut the place down, assassinate Senator Vigor or do anything terrible like that, but we do not have to put up with it forever-I hope. One thing is for sure: I do not have to put up with it forever. It is up to honourable senators to decide whether they want to put up with it for ever. Senator Short —He travels to Europe frequently. Senator GRIMES —I was nearly going to say that all honourable senators are welcome to a bed but I will have to draw the line somewhere. If honourable senators have any questions which take 15 minutes to ask or any comments on a department which take 15 minutes to deliver, if they put them in writing I will get an answer for them. I will obtain all the information they want. They can put questions on notice. Why in heavens they have to abuse the procedure of debate on the Appropriation Bill and the hearings of the Senate Estimates committees in the way they do I do not know. As sure as eggs they will destroy the system. One day one side or the other in the Parliament will find such honourable senators missing, having a cup of coffee or something, and will pass the Estimates in two seconds. Senator Mason —That is not likely to happen. Senator GRIMES —Yes, it will. One night Senator Mason will be caught short and he will not be there. He has never served on an Estimates Committee. One night the Government and the Opposition will combine to get rid of the nit-picking nonsense that has gone on with Estimates this year. They will get rid of it because it is a waste of time. Everyone wants to get information but all Senator Mason has done here tonight is tell us that he does not like Telecom or the ABC. I can do that in two seconds. Senator Mason —I raised some questions you ought to answer. Senator GRIMES —Senator Mason has not raised any questions tonight and Senator Vigor took 15 minutes to ask a question and because it took so long I forgot it. I will get the answers when I can but please let us get the vote for the Department of Communications through tonight if possible. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.29) —I want to raise a couple of points. I think that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) is taking a very arrogant and unnecessary view. It is a fact that points have been raised tonight on Telecom and its costs. We are talking about an organisation that spends $5 billion of this country's money. I cannot see any reason why the Minister would say that senators who represent members of the community should not get up here to ask such questions. I find this action by the Minister quite arrogant. Senator Grimes —You have not asked any questions. What questions did you ask? Senator MASON —I am asking the Minister why a selected number of members of this community are provided by an organisation which is supposed to provide a telephone service with free desk calendars every year and why it has to have better citizens of this world associated-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional order, 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 SHORT(Victoria)(10.31) —Tonight I want to raise again a matter which I have already raised twice during adjournment debates this year, on 13 February and 20 March, namely, the Footscray Swim Centre community employment program project in Victoria. I raise it again tonight for several reasons: Firstly, the receipt of totally unsatisfactory answers on the matter when I raised it during the hearing of Estimates Committee C on 24 September; secondly, the failure of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, to respond ad- equately to the matters I raised with him in a question that I asked in the Senate on 11 February and in my speech during the adjournment debate on 13 February, and his total failure to respond at all to additional questions I raised in my speech during the adjournment debate on 20 March; thirdly, the failure of the Minister to release the report by an independent auditor which he commissioned in March and which was completed six months ago, in May, following my raising of this matter in the Senate; fourthly, serious criticism of aspects of the project raised by the Footscray City Council's own auditor-criticisms which were acknowledged by the Council's director of finance; and, fifthly, the fact that the people of Footscray are now faced with an enormous and vastly costly white elephant, on the one hand, and no swimming pool, on the other. I do not wish to go into too much detail on the facts that are already contained in my speeches during the adjournment debates on 13 February and 20 March. But it is necessary to outline the situation very briefly. It is an issue which goes to the heart of the administration and the morality of the Hawke Labor Government. It is an issue which, to quote the Footscray City Council, is a tragedy. It raises important questions of principle that the responsible Minister, Mr Willis, has refused to face ever since I first brought this matter to his and to public attention nine long months ago. Regrettably, because I have always had respect for Mr Willis until now, it is a story of gross dereliction of duty, to put it at its best, by a senior Minister of the Crown. In the latter half of 1983 the Footscray City Council saw the newly established community employment program as a potential source of funds to enable it to upgrade its swimming pool. The cost of the project was put at between $2m and $3m. To cut a long story short, the Council, for reasons which have never been adequately explained, managed to get the Cain Labor Government in Victoria to support a CEP application, which resulted in a grant of $1.97m from the Federal Government, to be supplemented by a contribution of $850,000 from the Footscray Council and therefore, ultimately of course, from the ratepayers of Footscray. For a detailed outline of the project, I refer interested persons to pages 327 and 330 of the Senate Hansard of 13 February 1986. In a nutshell, the project has been a disaster. There has been a major cost overrun. Total spending to date has been $2.7m of Federal taxpayers' funds and up to $850,000 by the Footscray Council which, in the end, as I said, will have to be met by the ratepayers of Footscray. In other words, there has been an expenditure to date of $3.5m on a project which was to cost $2.8m and which is nowhere near completion. The project was due to be completed by August 1985 at the latest. Now, in November 1986, it is, as I said, nowhere near completion, despite the expenditure of approximately $3.5m, compared with the original total cost of $2.8m. I was told months ago that under existing CEP guidelines the project could not be completed if $10m was spent on it. In my earlier speeches and questions that I have asked in this place, between February and May 1986, I raised a number of very serious questions about this project-its nature, its administration, the part played by the Footscray Council and by the project manager, Trojan-Owen and Associates Pty Ltd. None of those questions has yet been satisfactorily answered, even though the Minister was sufficiently concerned about the matters I had raised to convene personally and chair a meeting of all involved parties on 5 March 1986, as a result of which he or his Department commissioned an independent audit report on the project. The independent auditor from the firm of K. M. G. Hungerfords reported to the Minister six months ago, in mid-May 1986. Despite constant requests from me to the Minister's office, that report has not been made public; nor have any decisions been made on the basis of it. The Minister even neglected to announce publicly its specific terms of reference. I raised the issue with officers of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations during the hearing of Estimates Committee C on 24 September. Let me refer to just a few of the responses that I received to my questions. I asked whether nowadays such a project would get approval from the Government. The answer was no. I asked whether the project had yet been completed. Of course, the answer to that was no, and it was nowhere near completion. I asked why the project, despite the fact that it was due to be completed at the latest by August 1985, had not been completed. I was told that that was due to `the unavailability of skilled tradespersons since the project was approved'. I was told that it was due to considerable disruption by the Builders Labourers Federation. Since the independent audit was commissioned in March 1986, no additional Commonwealth funds have been allocated to this project, but work on the project has continued, apparently with Council funds. But the Council funds were fairly limited, I am absolutely intrigued as to how work has been able to continue for six months, without any additional Commonwealth funding-as the Minister claims and as his Department claims-just on the basis of Council funds. During the Estimates Committee C hearing I was told: The Federal funds that have been provided for the project were exhausted some time ago . . . and no further funds have been provided. The independent audit conducted by K. M. G. Hungerfords apparently found-I say apparently because the report has not been released-`that there was no impropriety in terms of the use of CEP funds'. I obtained that quote from the minutes of the Footscray Council meeting. I again stress that the report has not been made public. Even the Council claims that it has not seen it, so I do not know how on earth it can make that statement on the basis of the report. I have been requesting the Minister, as I said, through his office, for the release of this report ever since its completion in mid-May. The Minister has persistently refused to release it. Why has the Minister refused to release such an important report on what is probably the largest CEP project that has been undertaken in the, now, almost four years of its existence? I can only come, very sadly, to one or two conclusions: Either there is a cover-up somewhere and/or there is some impropriety involved by some party or parties in this whole exercise. Nor has the Minister released the feasibility study which he also announced in March he would have undertaken by the Victorian State Public Works Department into the feasibility of the project. It was an extraordinary decision to have a feasibility study in March 1986 of a project which was approved in August 1984 and which was due to be completed in August 1985. Why has he not released the feasibility study report? Why have that study at all? I asked the departmental officer during the Estimates committee hearing whether he knew as yet whether realistically the project could be completed. The reply that I got was: I think that is a matter for the Minister's judgment . . . I am not sure that it is right for me to cast a judgment on whether I think a large and complex building project such as that can be completed under CEP. I can answer the question, as the answer is quite obvious from reading between the lines of the officer's statement. Such a project cannot be completed. The departmental officer also said: I am not able to say to you what the final cost of that project might be if one did that- that is, completed it- under the CEP program. How else can such a program be completed? The suggestions given are that that would be up to the sponsor. The sponsor, of course, is the Footscray City Council. If it is up to the sponsor, I presume it means that the sponsor is to find the funds from somewhere other than government sources; but how much, where and what will it cost the ratepayers of Footscray and, ultimately, the taxpayers of Australia? We still do not even know when a decision is going to be taken as to the future of this project, let alone who is going to pay for it. That story, I submit, is bad enough, but it does go much further. Some months ago the Victorian Government's Municipal Auditor, Mr B. H. MacKenzie of the firm of Haines Toner and Co, audited the swimming pool project to the end of September 1985. His audit comments were contained in the Footscray Council notice paper of 8 September 1986-only eight weeks ago. In respect of the swimming pool project, Mr MacKenzie had the following to say: The accounts of the project as submitted to me in the draft statement of accounts for the year were significantly incorrect in many respects and reflected a lack of understanding of the nature of the project and of the presentation required under normal accounting standards. . . . . I was not made aware of the existence of the company Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd until well after 30 September 1985, a period of over 12 months since its incorporation. For further details on that one perhaps needs to go back to my February adjournment speech on this matter. The sheer setting up of a company to handle a CEP project like this is almost unprecedented, and the reasons for doing so have never been satisfactorily explained. Mr MacKenzie added that the documents relating to the incorporation of this company were deficient in several ways, although again these deficiencies were subsequently rectified. Mr Mackenzie also said in his report: It appears to me very doubtful whether the formation of Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd and the beneficial ownership by Council of the three issued shares in that company is permissible under the Local Government Act 1958. . . . . Certain contracts entered into by the project managers, Trojan, Owen and Associates Pty Ltd, do not appear to have been advertised and tenders called in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act. . . . . My concern is that the procedures laid down by the Act do not appear to have been implemented. . . . It is noted that your previous auditor- the previous Footscray Council municipal auditor- made a specific reference to a similar omission in relation to the construction of the Community Arts Centre in Footscray. These are very serious comments made by the Council's auditor who, I might add, is a man of high reputation and total integrity. What has been the Council's response to these damaging comments? One should remember that they are comments contained in a Council notice paper four months after the receipt by the Federal Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) of the independent report from K. M. G. Hungerfords, a report which the Minister refuses to release but which is said to have found no impropriety. The Footscray Council's Finance Director, in response to the municipal auditor's comments, thought that they were `somewhat harsh', but he did not explain why. Indeed, everything he did say appears to have supported the auditor's comments. For example, he said that there had been `a lack of expertise in the compilation of such accounts', and that this required what he quaintly described as a `learn by experience approach'. He also said: While the auditor's comments that the beneficial ownership of the three issued shares may not be permissible under the Local Government Act, it should be realised that Council had no other option at the time, if it were to accept the $1.95m CEP grant for the Swim Centre. In other words, the Footscray City Council Director of Finance said that the Council had to act illegally, relative to the Local Government Act; otherwise it could not grab the grant it had applied for and had been angling for for months. The Director of Finance also admitted that there had been instances `where contracts were entered into and not advertised and tenders called in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act'. But he has given no reasons for these illegal actions and expressed no concern about them. The Council has received advice from its solicitor, Arthur Secomb and Company, questioning some of the municipal auditor's claims. But the auditor's serious allegations have not been adequately refuted and, indeed, the Council's own Director of Finance, as I have just pointed out, appears to actually support them. There is no doubt that this whole issue has an increasingly rotten smell to it. Why will the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations not release the independent auditor's report which he has now had for six months? Why have the serious allegations of the Council's own official municipal auditor not been formally investigated? How can serious breaches of the Local Government Act be condoned, as has been the situation to date? When will decisions be taken on the future of the still incompleted Swim Centre project? Who is going to foot the additional bill, and how large will that bill be over and above the $2.7m of Federal taxpayers' funds and up to $850,000 of Footscray Council ratepayers' funds already expended? Presumably the additional money can come only from those two sources yet again. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations stands condemned over his conduct of this appalling matter. It is important to ask why he has acted in this way. Is it because the project is in his own electorate? Is he trying to protect some person or persons associated with the project? How can he and the Footscray City Council treat the taxpayers of Australia and the ratepayers of Footscray in this quite appalling manner? If there has been any impropriety on anyone's part in this matter, it is imperative that it be uncovered and dealt with. It can only be dealt with and the facts brought out into the open if the Minister is prepared to release the independent report which he commissioned following my earlier questioning on this subject and which, for reasons that are totally unexplained, he has to date refused to release, despite the fact that he has had that report now for half a year. For the reason of its being imperative that this whole matter be cleared up and dealt with, I will be raising it with the Victorian Government as a matter of urgency. I have delayed doing so until now in order to give the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations an opportunity to study the report of the independent auditor, to release it and to take appropriate decisions. As I said, he has refused to act, despite having had the report for six months. It is now totally obvious that Mr Willis will not be taking the necessary steps to attempt to clear either his own name or the names of others involved in this shameful episode. I am therefore forced to take steps to seek justice for the taxpayers of Australia and the ratepayers of Footscray by other means. Finally, to give a little light relief to this very sad and, I believe, disgraceful saga, I inform the Senate that the Footscray Council recently wrote to me demanding that I pay the $18,500 account which it received from K. M. G. Hungerfords for the cost of the audit commissioned by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in March 1986. I have not yet responded to this demand from the Footscray Council but when councillors read tonight's Hansard-I will forward it to them very shortly-they may obtain some idea of the nature of what my response will be. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.51) —I know none of the details of the matters raised by Senator Short. Obviously they are matters about which he feels very strongly. I will certainly see that they are drawn to the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.52 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1195) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 11 June 1986: (1) Is Total Mining Australia, the Western Australian Government, or any other body, planning to transport to any other place, either within Western Australia, any other State of Australia, or to any overseas destination, the yellowcake slurry produced in the mining trials carried out at Manyingee in Western Australia. (2) If the Government is not aware of any such plans, could it seek an assurance from the relevant bodies, for example, Total Mining Australia and the Western Australian Government, that there are no such plans to move this yellowcake slurry. (3) If there are plans to transport the yellowcake slurry, would the Minister please advise details. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1, 2 and 3) The yellowcake slurry produced at Manyingee during trials to test alkaline solution mining techniques is being stored on site in a storage facility which conforms with the physical protection requirements of the Australian Safeguards Office. The question of storage arrangements is of course a responsibility of the WA Government which is examining this matter. Irrespective of its location the material will continue to be stored under conditions approved by the Australian Safeguards Office. (Question No. 1196) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 11 June 1986: (1) Is Total Mining Australia, the Western Australian Government, or any other body, planning to transport to any other place, either within Western Australia, any other State of Australia, or to any overseas destination, any of the contaminated plant, tailings and soil which resulted from the mining trials carried out at Manyingee in Western Australia. (2) Is Total Mining Australia, or any other body, planning to dispose of the contaminated plant, tailings and soil, in international waters. (3) If the Government is not aware of any such plans as mentioned in (1) and (2), could it seek an assurance from the relevant bodies, for example, Total Mining Australia and the Western Australian Government, that there are no such plans to dispose of this waste. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No. (3) Total Mining Australia has assured the Government that there are no plans to dispose of waste in the manner referred to in questions 1 and 2 above. (Question No. 1276) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since March 5, 1983. (2) What were the dates and salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There have been four reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in the Department of Foreign Affairs since 5 March, 1983. (2) The dates and salary details of these reclassifications are shown below: (a) 10 July, 1985-Pn. 1747-Deputy High Commissioner, London-SES Level 4 ($59,484) to SES Level 3 $54,995); (b) 9 January, 1986-Pn. 897-First Assistant Secretary, Economic, Scientific and Cultural Division-SES Level 3 ($57,085) to SES Level 4 ($61,744); (c) 9 January, 1986-Pn. 925-First Assistant Secretary, Legal and Consular Division-SES Level 3 ($57,085) to SES Level 4 ($61,744); (d) 9 January, 1986-Pn. 3877-Assistant Secretary, Archival Unit-SES Level 3 ($57,085) to SES Level 1 ($47,768). (Question No. 1432) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 14 October 1986: (1) What arrangements have been made for the construction of a cyclone-proof community centre on Home Island, in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. (2) When is it anticipated that this centre will be completed, and at what cost. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government has approved a development plan for Home Island in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, involving replacement of sub-standard housing and also the construction of a cyclone shelter/community centre. The design of the cyclone shelter allows for a floor area of 1 sq. m per person for the current population in the main hall (415 square metres) plus a breezeway and office (total 158 square metres) to allow an area to accommodate future increases in population. (2) Construction of the centre is due to commence in 1987/88 for completion in 1988/89 at an estimated cost of $1.1m. (Question No. 1435) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 14 October 1986: (1) What decision, if any, has been taken by the Federal Government in relation to the proposed upgrading of the airstrip on Christmas Island. (2) Will such upgrading be done at Government expense, or is it proposed that the developers of tourist accommodation and the casino would pay for the upgrading of the airstrip. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government has not made any decision to upgrade the Christmas Island airstrip, apart from normal maintenance. (2) The proponent of the resort/hotel/casino development, Mr Frank Woodmore, has been advised that should any upgrading of the airstrip, the terminal or airport services be required to meet the needs of his development, he will be required to meet all costs, both capital and recurrent.