Wednesday, 19 November 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the President and Honourable members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That we wish to protest at the cutbacks announced in the Federal Budget of August 1986. Large numbers of people live in poverty and many more are now moving in that direction. Gains in education, multi-culturalism, welfare and in many other areas that have been important to the Australian people are being eroded and in some cases totally destroyed. Members of the ethnic community have been hit twice as hard by the August budget. They experience the hardship of general economic policies as well as the severe cutbacks that effect services essential to developing equal opportunity and the promotion of multi-culturalism. We therefore call upon the Federal Government to reconsider the economic direction which it is pursuing and develop economic policies that cater for the needs of all Australians. Specifically, such policies must include the following which are vital to the ethnic and general Australian community at large:- The Federal Government to undertake full responsibility to maintain and expand the RSL programme; Retain the Human Rights Commission; Retain the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs; Reinstate funding to the education centres programme; Maintain the autonomy of SBS Television and Ethnic Radio; Maintain the branches of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Albury, Wollongong, Newcastle in NSW, as well as the other branches in Victoria and Queensland; To not introduce Tertiary Education fees; To maintain the Bill of Rights legislation; To reinstate, maintain and expand the Multicultural Education Program. Your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Senator Robertson (from 80 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 support your efforts to strengthen our family and community life particularly by increased penalties for `drug pushers' and distributors. We, however, wish to register our firm opposition to any legal changes which would increase or encourage the distribution or availability of so-called ``soft drugs'' such as marijuana. We believe such drugs to be harmful to the physical and psychological health of the individual and therefore to the interest of the community of which such individual is part. Although there is current controversy concerning the question of such harm it appears to us quite foolish to legalise and encourage the use of such drugs unless or until it be shown that such drugs are in fact harmless. The serious social problems of alcohol should provide sufficient warning to our society. Any efforts to legalise or decriminalise usage or distribution of such drugs will have the following results: 1. Encourage and inculcate a social acceptability towards such drugs. 2. Increase the volume of usage of such drugs in schools and the community by present users and by ``drug pushers'' through the proposed one ounce legal possession. 3. Extend the usage of such drugs to persons who would previously have abstained because of the legal sanctions. 4. Put pressure upon Parliament to establish and license import, growth, manufacture and/or distribution of such drugs, that is, to regulate another destructive industry contrary to the best interest of the individual and society. 5. There would be the probable temptation to tax such drugs as another source of Federal revenue. We urge the Government to increase the medical and counselling facilities for the assistance of drug users and to expand existing Drug Referral Centres and Clinics. We have general confidence in the existing law and its sympathetic implementation by the Police and Courts. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will firstly take no measures that could extend the major social problem of drug usage and secondly will oblige those who are promoting marijuana and/or similar drugs to prove without doubt that such drugs are harmless before any legislation or decriminalisation of use is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 245 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 108 citizens) and Puplick (from 107 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned concerned citizens of Australia shows: the Joint Space Defence Research Facility at Pine Gap is a vital part of United States plans to fight a nuclear war, thus implicating Australia in these immoral plans; spy satellites such as those linked to Pine Gap are used to spy on both allied and non-allied countries, including Australia; these activities of Pine Gap are a destabilizing influence in a dangerously uneasy world, raising the level of fear and distrust between nations; the significance of Pine Gap to the U.S.A. is such that it is a prime nuclear target; Pine Gap desecrates an Aboriginal dreaming track. Your petitioners therefore strongly urge that the Australian Government give to the government of the U.S.A. the one year's notice required to terminate the lease on the Joint Space Defence Research Facility at Pine Gap. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 100 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That 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 Vigor (from 83 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person. 2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers, including Local, State and Federal Government Departments. 3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats. 4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay. 5. The FBT laws are extremely complex. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 1,558 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Australians are offended by taxation evasion and welfare fraud which has the effect of increasing the taxation burden of honest Australians. 2. The community has shown its overwhelming support for the Government's decision to proceed with a national identification system known as the Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable Senate will: continue the fight against taxation evasion and welfare fraud and restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare systems by supporting the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Maguire (from 45 citizens). To the President of the Senate and Senators in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, wish to register our opposition to recent changes to Australia's Overseas Student Program (OSP) outlined in the 1986/7 Federal Budget, most notably: 1. the decision to dramatically increase the visa charge for existing and commencing students; 2. the imposition of the visa charge for TAFE, secondary and some postgraduate students; 3. the failure to lift national, institutional and course-based quotas on overseas student enrolment; 4. the further deregulation of the Overseas Student Program through the expansion of full-cost study programs for overseas students. We believe that the Overseas Student Program is an important education program to promote international goodwill and peace, especially among the nations of Asia and the Pacific region. The continued imposition of charges and quotas, as well as the forced deportations, only serve to undermine the considerable value of the O.S.P. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government reverses its decision to downgrade the subsidized O.S.P. and resolves, in its place, to dismantle the prohibitive visa charge and quota system. Your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Senator Lewis (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: that the proposed increased of 10% sales tax on wine and the 10% sales tax on citrus juice will have a detrimental effect on the economy of the irrigation areas, particularly the Riverland of South Australia. Yours petitioners humbly pray that all Senators oppose the Budget Bills which impose these taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vanstone (from 7,500 citizens). Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I present the following petition, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form and does not contain a prayer at the end thereof, from 1,834 citizens who oppose the amalgamation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service: We the undersigned strongly oppose the merger of SBS (radio and television) with the ABC. We believe the financial reasons for the decision to merge are ill conceived, as evidenced by the Report of the Government's own Connor Committee of Review. The Ethnic Communities of Australia cannot understand why the Government proposes this merger without any consultation with the communities most severely affected. The Government must be aware that Ethnic Communities and other Anglo-Celtic Australians will not stand by and watch multi-culturalism in this country being reduced to tokenism. The amalgamation of SBS and the ABC constitutes the end of autonomous ethnic broadcasting in Australia. Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) The days and hours of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of the Budget Sittings be as follows: (a) Tuesday, 25 November 1986 and Monday, 1 December 1986- 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (b) Wednesday, 26 November 1986, and Wednesday, 3 December 1986- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (c) Thursday, 27 November 1986 and Thursday, 4 December 1986- 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (d) Friday, 28 November 1986 and Friday, 5 December 1986- 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-3.45 p.m.; and (e) Tuesday, 2 December 1986- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (2) For the week commencing 24 November 1986 and on Friday, 5 December 1986, the Sessional Order relating to the Routine of Business for Week 1 apply. (3) With the exception of Tuesday, 2 December 1986, for the week commencing 1 December 1986, the Sessional Order relating to the Routine of Business for Week 2 apply. (4) The Order of Business for Tuesday, 2 December 1986, be as follows: (a) Petitions; (b) Notices of Motion; (c) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business; (d) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business; (e) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice-versa, as set down on the Notice Paper; (f) At 2 p.m., Questions; (g) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64; (h) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order; and (i) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice-versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) is of the opinion that Australia's modern birthplace at Kurnell should be preserved as much as possible in its natural state; and (b) Requests the Federal Government to seek discussions with the New South Wales Government to seek re-zoning of areas of Kurnell Peninsula to prevent the establishment of noxious chemical industries there. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the detention of 4 Australian citizens on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean after the sinking of their ship, the Southern Raider, on 9 October 1986; (b) notes too, the allegation of John Chadderton, the skipper from Perth, that their real offence lay in going too close to secret preparations by the French Government to establish a nuclear test site on Kerguelen Island; (c) commends the Australian Government for its continued opposition to French nuclear tests outside metropolitan France; and (d) calls on the Australian Government to ascertain from the French Government whether or not it is developing Kerguelen Island as a nuclear test site after destroying Mururoa Atoll over the last 20 years; Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with alarm the findings of the Australian Chamber of Commerce-National Bank of Australia Survey of Business Conditions that: (i) business investment plans are at their most pessimistic level since late 1982, (ii) only 23 per cent of companies surveyed expect to increase capital expenditure over the next 12 months, (iii) 41 per cent of companies surveyed expect to decrease investment over the next 12 months, and (iv) corporate profitability declined significantly in the September 1986 quarter as higher overall costs squeezed profit margins; (b) records the Opposition's concern that these pessimistic business investment indicators contrast sharply with Government assertions that its economic policies are creating the positive business investment environment necessary for Australia's unemployment and balance of payment problems to be overcome; (c) condemns the Government's failure to face facts on the poor business investment outlook and its implications for the J-curve based economic development which it promotes as the eventual outcome of Government economic policies; and (d) calls on the Government to review and revise its economic policies immediately so that renewed growth in business investment can occur on the basis of genuine optimism about Australia's domestic and international growth prospects. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that: (i) the October 1986 monthly current account deficit is the worst ever recorded under the administration of any Australian government, and (ii) the current account deficit worsened significantly over the last year, with the deficit for the first 4 months of the 1986-87 financial year being 14 per cent higher than the corresponding period 12 months ago; (b) reminds the Government that the expectation or prediction by it of extremely adverse current account deficits in no way excuses the relevant Ministers from responsibility, or absolves them from blame, for their repeated occurrence; (c) regards the poor business investment outlook, as revealed in the Australian Chamber of Commerce-National Bank of Australia Survey of Business Conditions, as a factor seriously undermining the credibility of Government claims that an export-led economic recovery sufficient to reduce the current account deficit is within sight; and (d) condemns the Government for failing to take action necessary to make the Australian economy more internationally competitive, a necessary precondition for the lasting resolution of Australia's balance of payments difficulties. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —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. Australian Forestry Council-summary of resolutions and recommendations from the Twenty-third Meeting held in Canberra on 12 June 1986. 2. Town Campers Assistance Program-Annual Report 1985-86-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs relating to the report. 3. An Aboriginal and Islander Consultative Organisation-Report by Miss Lois O'Donoghue-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs relating to the report. Motion (by Senator Vigor) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend provisions in certain Acts relating to the disallowance of delegated legislation. Bill presented by Senator Vigor, and read a first time. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.10) —by leave-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 Disallowance Provisions Amendment Bill 1986 is intended to remedy a number of quite serious flaws in the various statutory schemes which give each House of the Parliament power to disallow delegated legislation. These defects have been identified and drawn to the attention of the Senate by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee in its eightieth report. They are described in full in the report and reference is made to them in the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. A number of recent examples serve to illustrate the fact that unless these flaws are remedied, and remedied quickly, then this Senate will have inadequate control over Executive law-making. The Senate may even run the risk of lacking any power to control certain delegated legislation which the Senate might wish to disallow but about which it can do nothing. For example, although part of an ordinance can be disallowed there is no similar power over part of a regulation. Recently, I moved to disallow three regulations in the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (Inquiries) Regulations. This was the only means open to me to remove provisions within those regulations which I regarded as objectionable. My motion was unsuccessful because other senators who may have shared some of my concerns were reluctant to support disallowance of all of the regulations when only parts of them might have been objectionable. This inability to disallow part of a regulation also means that the Senate's power of disallowance can, in certain circumstances, be completely neutralised. A Minister may make a long and detailed regulation which is objectionable to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee on grounds of principle, or to the Senate on grounds of policy. When notice of motion of disallowance is given the Minister can make another, identical regulation, repealing and re-enacting the earlier regulation. Since there is no power to disallow part only, a successful disallowance motion cannot separate the repeal from the re-enactment. The Senate can only disallow the whole regulation including the part which repeals the earlier regulation. Disallowance of a repeal has the effect of reviving what was repealed. Thus the earlier objectionable regulation would revive. The Senate could do nothing to prevent such a manoeuvre. It amounts to a fundamental defect in the parliamentary disallowance scheme but it can be overcome quite simply with a power of partial disallowance. Earlier this year-19 March 1986 and 1 May 1986-this very problem was avoided only by chance. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) made certain prescribed goods orders. Aspects of these were objectionable and notice of motion of disallowance was given. Before the motion came on, the Minister repealed the orders and remade them in a slightly different, but no less objectionable, form. The first notice of motion of disallowance was discharged from the Notice Paper and a new notice was given. Because the provision which repealed the first orders was located in a distinct provision, disallowance of other provisions did not affect that repeal. This was merely good fortune for the Senate. Had the repeal been placed in one of the provisions to which objection was taken, disallowance would have also disallowed the repeal, the first set of objectionable orders would have been revived, and the Senate would have had no power to disallow them. Another problem relates to the lack of any real obligation on a Minister to table delegated legislation. Even if regulations are deliberately not tabled they are valid for the duration of the 15 sitting days during which they could, and should, have been tabled. On the sixteenth sitting day they can be remade and the cycle recommences. Since the non-tabled regulations will not be void ab initio, there is in effect complete continuity in the law. Section 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act provides that non-tabling does not affect obligations, liabilities, penalties or proceedings incurred and commenced during the 15 day period. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee, in its eightieth report, has reported on a variation of this pro-blem dealing with the World Cup Athletics (Security Arrangements) Ordinance. The Ordinance was made, was in force, and then expired under a sunset clause, 2 days before it was tabled in the Senate and no less than a month after it could reasonably have been tabled for approval. Finally, disallowance of a repealing regulation will revive that which was repealed and thus prevent there being any gaps in the law. However, disallowance of an ordinance which terminates the operation of some other `law' such as a New South Wales Act of an imperial Act a number of which still apply in the Australian Capital Territory, will not revive the `law' that has been terminated. The Bill is designed to remedy this flaw also and indeed earlier this year the Senate disallowed just such a repealing ordinance. I understand that the Attorney-General advised the Regulations and Ordinances Committee that disallowance would not revive any of the terminated laws although such revival was the intention behind the motion of disallowance. I think all of these examples show that the problems identified by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee are, or could become, real problems for the senate in exercising its disallowance powers. Disallowance, or the threat of it, is the really effective mechanism in this Chamber to guarantee a large measure of executive and bureaucratic accountability to Parliament. The flaws pointed out by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee have the effect of seriously undermining the quality of that guarantee. My Bill will restore the guarantee to its full value. My Bill proposes one further refinement designed to ensure that delegated legislation should first be made in draft form and be available to the general public for scrutiny for a period of 60 days before it is made law. All of these measures will improve parliamentary and public control over delegated legislation and I therefore commend this Bill to the Senate. With the concurrence of the Senate I table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Vigor) agreed to: That Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name, for this day, for the disallowance of the Advisory Council Ordinance be postponed till Wednesday, 26 November 1986. Consideration resumed from 18 November. GROUP C Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $510,115,000. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(10.12) —Last night we were talking about the annual report of the Australian Telecommunications Commission. I would like to elaborate on some of the things Senator Mason said last night. He said that he received something like three calendars every year from Telecom, which is probably very nice. I did not receive three calendars, but I did receive three annual reports. I think there is a little waste associated with that. Being from the country I thank Telecom for the services it has given us over the years, but the amount of money being wasted, such as that spent on annual reports, worries me. Being a member of the Standing Committee on Publications, I am very mindful of the amount of money being spent on publications. Also of concern to me is the amount of money being spent on overtime and travelling allowance by Telecom. I would like the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) to supply me with those figures-maybe it is a matter that should be taken on notice. I will definitely be putting a question about overtime on notice. Quite often telephones are installed at the weekends when I think they could be installed during the week. I know this happens quite regularly in country areas. Telecom is advertising a lot on television at the moment. That is all very well if the advertising is to tell us to use telephones more often, but when the advertising is not for that sort of reason I do not think it is quite within the charter of the Australian Telecommunication Commission. If it were advertising to tell us to use telephones more often and we were to do so, it would make ringing up, especially on Sunday nights, even more of a problem than it is now. In the country areas we quite often get that `try again in a little while' response as the number of calls being made at that time cannot be handled. I would rather that some of the money being spent on advertising and on the production of these annual reports be put into improving the facilities we have now. The Telecom annual report states on the front page: The functions of the Commission are- to plan, establish, maintain and operate telecommunications services within Australia; to operate such other services as the Commission is authorised by the Telecommunications Act to operate; to provide at the request of the Australian Government, technical assistance outside Australia in relation to the planning, establishment, maintenance and operation of telecommunications services in countries outside Australia; and to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of any of the preceding functions. None of those functions is to become an advertising agency. I ask Telecom not to spend so much money on advertising and to spend a little more on upgrading its facilities in country New South Wales. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.16) —The matter of Telecom Australia needs to be grasped by the Government fairly firmly at this stage. Senator Puplick —Soberly. Senator MASON —I agree with Senator Puplick. I shall do my best. On page 12 of the report the Chairman, Mr R. W. Brack, states: Telecom aims to keep its rates and charges as low as practicable, consistent with financial requirements . . . That is a very reasonable statement. I notice also from the report that Telecom made a profit of $465m for 1985-86, an increase of $80m over previous years. Whilst this money undoubtedly comes back to Consolidated Revenue, it is arguable whether telephone users should be called on to subsidise the rest of the community, because that is what is happening. Whatever way one looks at it, it is not necessary for Telecom to make that kind of profit. If it did not make that kind of profit the community would be no worse off. I am concerned about the annual report. Senator Brownhill had an advantage over me in that he received three copies of the annual report, whereas I received only two copies. Senator Brownhill —But you get two calendars. Senator MASON —I will talk about that a little later. I received only two copies of the annual report, each separately packaged, each in its own envelope and each mailed to me. The annual report is a very lavish publication. I do not see the necessity for that. It has in it a great deal of colour printing. I did a rough count and found that it has approximately 64 photographs in it of Telecom administration and staff. I cannot see the necessity for an annual report to have in it 64 photographs of its staff all over Australia. Senator Brownhill —Especially when there are none of you, Senator Mason. Senator MASON —I am not a member of Telecom staff or administration. I do not think it is necessary for an annual report to do other than convey reasonable information. This annual report does not convey the information that it might. It does not convey information on how much the annual report cost to produce and how many copies were sent out. I ask the Minister to get that information for me because it is very relevant to everybody in this country who has to pay for a telephone. Telecom's calendars are annual diaries which, I gather, because I have been getting them for a number of years, are sent out to selected customers of Telecom. They are quite lavish. One is a very large desk diary with brass corners; it is quite elaborately done. Another is a pocket diary, although it is just too large to put in one's pocket. I gather that the cost of all this is something like $90,000. I would have thought that it was the job of Telecom to provide a telephone service. The sooner we go back to the situation where Telecom just provides a telephone service, the better off everybody will be and the fewer complaints people will make about Telecom. I recently asked some questions about whether people should be able to get itemised telephone accounts. No, I was told in reply, they cannot have itemised accounts because it would cost too much. But it does not cost too much to give people free desk diaries and it does not cost too much to turn out an annual report with colour photographs of 64 Telecom staff and administration. Where are the priorities? I think these are reasonable questions which need to be asked. To approach them sensibly is part of the long road back for Telecom to its proper and reasonable job which, as I say, is simply to provide a telephone service. If one looks at the general accounts one sees that the maintenance of customer services and maintenance of the network takes about $1.5 billion a year. That is the basic cost. But $5 billion is taken from the community by Telecom as its fee for providing the service. There have been many complaints. There are very few areas in which I receive more constituent complaints. It is time the Government had a serious outside look at Telecom to try to find what its function is. Senator Brownhill made the point about television advertising. If a company such as Telecom has a monopoly, what is the point of spending huge sums of money on television advertising? One hears of other matters. I gather that Telecom provides community awards to people. Someone can be nominated for a community award for good service and Telecom will turn out some sort of certificate. Laudable though such things are, what is the point of it? Is this the proper function of an organisation which is there to provide telephones? Looking through Telecom's accounts and seeing the amount of money that is spent on administration-$232m-it seems to be time that the Senate, the Parliament and the Government had a good look at where that sum of money is being spent and whether it is necessary to spend that much. To the extent that the Government might decide that that spending is not necessary, everybody's telephone bill should be reduced. That is a consummation very greatly to be desired by everybody who has a telephone. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.21) —Last night I went through some of the reasons why the Australian Broadcasting Corporation accounts looked very strange. I have spent a lot of time looking at them. There seems to have been quite a problem with the accounts since 1975. This results from the fact that in 1975-76 the ABC had all its land acquisition and building moneys handled by other departments. A true comparison between the ABC figures in 1975-76 and the current figures is practically impossible. In 1984-85 it suddenly switched to incorporating all land acquisition and building moneys into its own accounts. This means that under the current scheme of things capital expenditures are severely underestimated and the type of budgeting procedures which seem to involve just extrapolation have meant that the ABC is severely strapped for money. The ABC's financial situation is much worse than is presented by accounting procedures. It is important to put the accounts back on a correct basis. This would certainly help to understand and have reasonable reporting of what the ABC is doing. The second area I would like to raise is that despite the apparent commitment of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to the extension of the services of the Special Broadcasting Service, there is absolutely no money in this Budget-nor is any even proposed-for the extension of the 2EA and 3EA services to other areas. No transmitters are being proposed in conjunction with the extension of the second regional radio network. This really puts the lie to the Minister's statement that the Government is talking about the extension of multicultural broadcasting to regional Australia. Some answer is needed. I turn to a very serious matter relating to Australia Post that came out of the Estimates committee hearings. Last week, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure criticised the computer performance of the Australian Taxation Office and suggested that the development of a corporate strategy for modern data processing is essential in that Office. It is also essential within organisations such as Telecom Australia and Australia Post. The failure of the Auditor-General's Office to publish an efficiency audit on the counter service of Australia Post gave further breathing space to Australia Post in not taking up a sensible strategy in this area. It now appears to be heading in the same direction as the Australian Taxation Office in resorting to outdated methods and outdated computer technology. I believe that means we will be paying more in postage. It means that opportunities are being lost for the development of better counter services. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia, which has the sole contract for handling the counter services of electronic funds transfer at point of sale banking within Australia Post, is obviously going to do very well out of the deal. I suppose that will be very useful for that organisation. However, it is serious that Australia Post apparently has chosen deficient equipment from overseas suppliers to fulfil this contract. The most modern equipment is available locally and is being exported by Australian companies. The situation is exactly the wrong way around. The danger is that Australia Post will be locked into obsolescent equipment and will miss out on many opportunities and Australian industry will not be supported by Australia Post. It is also disturbing that Telecom has started a card phone project for electronic transfer of funds for phone account payments. That again may be tapped in to a system tied to one bank for all payments and commissions. This type of gateway system is old technology. In fact, the equipment which Australia Post is proposing and the system which Telecom is proposing have been thrown out overseas. Apparently the rejected equipment may even be being brought in. I refer to the international news section of Computing Australia of 11 November 1985. It states: A total of 50 terminals supplied to ICL by Scottish terminal manufacturer Fortronic have been thrown out for an electronic funds transfer at point-of-sale . . . after only two and a half months. It was found that a Fortronic F75 terminal which was specifically re-engineered for the scheme did not work. This occurred in Singapore. That is the equipment that Australia Post is currently proposing to install over all its counter systems. There are a number of other reports in the technical Press and the Minister will be conscious that this is my particular area of expertise. Senator Grimes —The Minister is not conscious; that is the trouble. Senator VIGOR —This is a problem; the Government is not conscious at all in this area. There is a real problem that these EFT systems that are being installed do not conform to Australian and world standards in terms of security. So it will be possible to perpetrate fraud using this equipment. The Australian Standards Association has warned about this. Yet nothing appears to have been done by Australia Post. It really is disturbing that both Telecom, with its card phone system, and Australia Post are pursuing this system with the Fortronic terminal which is far inferior to the locally produced Australian product. There are three reasons for slamming the Government and Australia Post on this. Firstly, insufficient work was done in studying the project. Secondly, during the Estimates committee hearings we found out that the tenders were called in early January, during the silly season, with only three weeks remaining. Thirdly, the tenders were only advertised in a couple of gazettes. They were not advertised very broadly. The commercial assessment was done by an interested party, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. I believe this requires a considerable amount of investigation by the Government. Apparently, over 500 terminals have been purchased at a cost of $3,000 each and up to 6,000 terminals are expected in the future. We are talking about big money. We are talking about opportunities lost by Australia Post. Thirdly, we are talking about the fact that these terminals will only plug in through the gateway of the Commonwealth Bank and our electronic counter services in the post offices will not be able to access the general EFT funds that are provided by the various other banks and building societies. I believe it is scandalous that such a situation has arisen. A Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation consultancy has had to be used to clean up the potential mess regarding the defective communications protocol which was set up. This happened after the tender had been let. In fact, far too many things of a technical nature were left to the Commonwealth Bank to attend to. As Senator Mason said in regard to Telecom Australia, it is there to provide phone services. The Commonwealth Bank is there to provide banking services, and should not be used to advise Australia Post on its EFT needs. I believe the Government has had the wool pulled over its eyes. I am extremely disappointed that no investigation at this stage has been started, despite the questions which have been asked during Estimates committee hearings. I would like to know at this stage, firstly, what the Government is planning to do to try to free up the facilities that will be available on the electronic funds transfer and point of sale systems that will be installed in each of the telephone offices, to make them compatible with standards that are now accepted world-wide, and, secondly, whether the Government will re-examine the tender. I understood that there are Australian manufacturers. I will not name them at this stage, but they should be investigated and considered. I believe that, if the Government believes in its buy Australian strategy, it should look very closely at what its large statutory bodies, such as Australia Post, are doing in this area. It is scandalous that we should be getting and installing at very high prices outdated equipment which has been thrown out of Singapore and which will not provide us with a service that the Australian community deserves. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(10.34) —I want to say a few words on the report of the Australian Telecommunications Commission. I am Chairman of the Standing Committee on Publications. We have investigated the whole aspect of reports and other matters. That report will be tabled in the Senate next week. I agree with what Senator Mason said. This is one of the reports that the Committee looked at. It is way outside the guidelines. The cost of the report is in the vicinity of $17. The cost of other reports also is becoming outrageous. The Committee has been very vigilant over the years. In real terms, I suppose we spend less now on publications than we did 10 years ago. So we have reduced costs. Of course, any action is up to the Government. We will be issuing a report next week which covers all the aspects that have been raised. I simply rose to inform the chamber of this. I am not going to divulge what will be in that report. Naturally, I cannot; but this matter has been looked at. The Committee comprises members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Senator Brownhill, who is present, is on the Committee, as is Senator Archer, who is not in the chamber at the moment. We are concerned about this and there will be a report to the Parliament next week. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.36) —I just wish to indicate that I would be grateful to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) if his officers could supply an answer to the question I raised yesterday about the potential decline in the size of the markets for the broadcasters in Maryborough and Darling Downs under the announced approved markets scheme which a number of Press articles have drawn attention to since that statement was made by Mr Duffy. Is the claim correct that those two television stations will actually have their market sizes reduced by the approved market arrangements which have been announced? Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(10.37) —I would like to ask the Minister for Community Services a question regarding the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the control the Government might have over the independence of that Corporation. I want to quote some figures about the coverage of the Australian Labor Party conference and the coverage of the Liberal Party of Australia conference. The on-air coverage for the ALP conference was something like 12 minutes and 26 seconds on the news. The coverage of the Liberal Party conference was four minutes and nine seconds on the news. The coverage for the ALP conference on The 7.30 Report was 44 minutes and 39 seconds and the coverage for the Liberal Party conference was five minutes and four seconds. The Carleton-Walsh Report gave on-air coverage to the ALP conference of something like one hour and 38 minutes and the Liberal Party conference nine minutes and 18 seconds. In the answer the ABC gave to substantiate that coverage, it said: The level of coverage extended to the ALP Conference was predicated on the fact that this is a biennial conference which historically has had a key decision making role in the ALP policy. I ask the Minister whether that is correct, because policies were made on uranium mining at that conference and, of course, the Government has changed that policy here, so conference policies do not seem to bind the Government. Is the ABC independent of government control in respect of the amount of time that is given to political parties? Also, does the key decision making role of those conferences predicate the amount of time that is given each conference? Senator Elstob —You would have to agree that our conference is very good. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.39) —I suppose it is best to work backwards. I am not sure whether Senator Brownhill is advocating that conferences of various political parties should get exactly the same coverage from the ABC or any other organisation. The simple fact of the matter is, as Senator Elstob pointed out, that Liberal Party conferences are predictable, dull and have no power while Labor Party conferences are lively, controversial and have a policy-making process. If one looks at the coverage given to both those conferences in the daily print media and in the commercial television media, one finds the same disparity. If he wants to get coverage, his Party should put on a good show. We do, but his Party does not. That is simply what it is all about. I have not got the answer to Senator Puplick's question. I sought that answer from the office of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and I will get it to him as soon as possible. We have not got people here with the technical knowledge to answer his question. Senator Mason asked some questions today that I can understand. He is concerned about the annual report of Telecom Australia. I agree that some annual reports are a bit colourful. Last year or the year before Telecom's annual report actually won an award for excellence, obviously from the annual report industry, which is interested in encouraging it. The Telecom annual report has a lot of pictures, and reports with a lot of pictures are fairly helpful to some honourable senators, who need a lot of pictures in reports to help them to keep their interest up. I could find only one photograph of Mr Duffy in the report, which is much better than the famous annual report of the Department of Foreign Affairs of a few years ago. That had nine photographs of Mr Peacock. Telecom's annual report has improved in that way. Senator Puplick —It still doesn't come anywhere near Mr Brown's publications at the moment. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator is probably right. We should wait on Senator Elstob's Publications Committee report. If annual reports were put out on roneoed paper there would be complaints here that the quality was not good enough. It is a matter of striking a balance. I accept that Telecom's report is a lavish report and if it really cost $17 a copy, as Senator Elstob has suggested, I can only say that I can buy a book with many more pages but admittedly fewer pictures through the book club for much cheaper than that. Every year I get free diaries from commercial organisations-I send them back-but I have never got a Telecom diary. I am a bit put out. I want to know why Senator Mason gets them and I do not, especially if they have gold things around the corners. They sound like fancy diaries to me. I do not know why people think that diaries are good gimmicks. The Senate also puts one out, printed in Hong Kong, I think. Senator Elstob —Not now. Senator GRIMES —It used to be. Senator Elstob assures me that that has changed. I do not know why people put out diaries and send them to us. I never use them. I will give a free plug: The only one that was ever worth while was the old Trans Australia Airlines diary because it was nice and small and could fit in my pocket. Most of the pocket diaries now are too big and they are full of information about the weather in Moscow and Scandinavian trotting ducks and heaven knows what else. I will refer that matter to Mr Duffy, but the Australian Telecommunications Commission has a certain amount of judgment in this area. Senator Vigor raised a few matters about the accounting methods of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the effectiveness or otherwise of some electronic transfer of funds equipment, I believe it was, which he thought needed investigation, and a few other matters which demonstrated his wide knowledge and great activities. I was going to tell a story but there are children in the gallery so I cannot. Senator Elstob —They would love to hear it. Senator GRIMES —I will tell it later. The CHAIRMAN —Minister, you are also on air. Senator GRIMES —I know I am on air. I know all these matters are of importance and I will seek the information from the Minister and the relevant authorities. We are in the Committee stage of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87. Short of bringing in the whole of the Department of Communications, Telecom and the ABC, I have not got that information at my fingertips at the moment. I thought I knew a couple of answers but I have just forgotten them. I will get that information for the good senator. Could I make a perhaps hopeful and vain plea: This debate is the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill. If honourable senators want to make second reading speeches every 15 minutes I suppose there is nothing I can do, but in the end we may get to the stage where even other senators get fed up with it and bring down the shutters. We are a very tolerant lot, so I will just say that I will seek the information and get back to the Committee as soon as possible. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP D Department of Education Proposed expenditure, $934,420,000. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.45) —I wish to raise a question which, somewhat unusually it seems, relates to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87. The Government has made a decision with regard to the estimates of the Department of Education to eliminate a number of education centres-namely, Bayside, Redcliffe, Tablelands, Warwick, Innercity, Northern Districts, Southern Teachers in Tasmania, Port Pirie and Benalla. The debate on that is for another place and another time. But I have been rather intrigued by the absolute deluge of Press releases that I have received from the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) which were issued on 16 October. The first one relates to the Bayside education centre which, under the Budget, was not given any Commonwealth grants. However, this centre is now to get a $25,000 Commonwealth grant. The Warwick education centre is to get a Commonwealth grant of $13,500; Tablelands is going to get $35,000; and Port Pirie is to get $40,000. These institutions are to get nothing under the normal budgetary allocations. But as I understand it, the following procedure has occurred: Someone from the Schools Commission has rung up Bayside, Tablelands, Warwick and Port Pirie and said: `Look, if you get a bit of paper in with a program for some type of national operation, we will get straight back to you and say that you will get a grant. Since there will not be any guidelines on how the grant is to be used-in other words, there are no guidelines on how it is to be split up between day to day running, administration or anything else-you can keep your doors open and stay in operation'. I suppose that this is a way of negating a budgetary decision without actually having to go back on it. If that is the case, I am interested to know why in fact Redcliffe, Innercity, Northern Districts, Southern Teachers and Benalla education centres were not offered the same type of proposition. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.48) —I think many people were very disappointed to find in the Budget that there were significant cuts to the funding of the English as a second language program. Apparently the cuts amount to just over $30m for a full year and over $14m in the balance of this financial year. I really wonder whether the Government has thought through the significance of making cuts in this area and has a full appreciation of the significance of the English as a second language program. The program has been specifically relevant in the Australian Capital Territory. There are still concerns among teachers at the Woden College of Technical and Further Education and other teachers of English as a second language as to what their own career prospects will be as a consequence of this decision. I know that the program has been reviewed. The Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts looked at this matter when it was considering the need for a national language policy. It has also been reviewed by the Quality of Education Review Committee. But generally I think the outcomes of the reviews have indicated that it is a valuable program which is relevant to people of non-English speaking backgrounds. Of course, the program covers people from a significant range of ages. Some come to this country as adults with no English and some come here as children and enter our school systems with no English. There are others who are born here and, on the face of it, appear to have the advantage of being exposed to English but who in fact have grown up in a household where some other language is the normal language. They turn up in our schools with little more than what one might call street English or that which they have picked up from playing with other children. They are at a vastly different stage of their education when they commence school to most of the other children who enter the school program. That, of course, is significant to children starting school at that stage. I also believe it is significant for everybody else going into a class. Australian Capital Territory primary school class sizes are, hopefully, no more than about 30 per class. It is fairly clear this year that, with the additional funding cuts to the Australian Capital Territory education program, many of the classes will rise from 30 to possibly 32 in a class. If the teacher has amongst her 30 or 32 children one or two for whom English is a second language and who are not getting adequate assistance, that has an impact on the rest of the children in that class. The teacher either ignores those for whom English is a second language, in which case they have no hope of ever getting anywhere in our society, or she attempts to devote time to them to see that they have a chance of keeping up in which case the rest of the class gets less attention than they are entitled to. It is not just a question of saying: `Oh, only about 9 per cent of children turn up with this problem'. It affects the whole of the education system. It affects the chance children will have in life, the ability to get on and the ability to fit in to this community. If we are to get our priorities right we would have to say that it is not very smart to cut the program of English as a second language. We have heard that other programs can be cut back to compensate and that the States will be asked to do this and that. But whatever is done, somewhere the education system will miss out. The fundamental point remains that this Government sought to balance its Budget by cutting into this very vital and significant program which has a great deal of impact on all of the people who particularly need it. I think it is a matter that needs to be reviewed, not with the sort of band-aid measures that have been suggested so far, but as a fundamental right. It is a program that we introduced and we continue to support its objectives. We support the achievements that have been made. We are pleased, indeed, that so many teachers have taken up the challenge and have made themselves expert in the area of teaching English as a second language. I think it is one of the most significant aspects of the education program and I particularly regret that it has been cut out of this year's Budget. I hope that the decision can be reversed at some time. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(10.52) —I wish to comment briefly on three matters which relate to the estimates of the Department of Education. The first relates to the decision to pay the secondary allowance to students rather than to their parents. I recognise that for financial reasons, namely taxation ones, it makes good sense to do that. I am concerned at what the social impact may be on paying these funds to comparatively young people. I recognise the fact that the Macquarie University is undertaking a study for the Government on the impact of this scheme. I flag that I have a considerable interest-as I am sure do many parents-in what the social impact will be of this fortnightly handout of a sizable amount of money to young people who have never had funds in their hands before. I hope that it has no divisive impact on families and that it has a very good impact on the retention rate of young people in schools because, as a nation, I think our first priority must be to keep people in school in meaningful education and not as a baby-sitting exercise. Too many young people are leaving school for the option of having money in their hands and we will all be the poorer if this practice continues much longer. Nevertheless, we must be very aware of the fact that this allowance could have undesirable or unintended consequences, which is the `in' expression. I draw this to the attention of honourable senators as something that should be watched. Another matter which came out during our consideration of the Education Department estimates which is of concern to me is one that Senator Vigor referred to last night as a general problem throughout the Public Service. In questioning officers of the Department of Education on the higher duties allowance we were told that 43 per cent of a sample at the central office had been found to be on higher duties allowance. I think this is a totally unacceptable figure. There may be higher figures in other departments, nevertheless I think we cannot look at this in a kindly light. The explanation I think is fairly clear: So many people need to be recruited to fill vacancies and the delay in filling a vacancy in this Department is 18 weeks. I think that in itself is unacceptable. I recognise that the Government is taking measures to try to streamline the Public Service, and we shall all be better off if it succeeds-I sincerely hope it can. There is a great disincentive in the system where a vacancy is automatically assumed to be desirable to be filled by people on higher duties allowance. We then end up with a string of people on higher duties allowance right through the Department and somewhere, perhaps down the bottom of the pile, there will be a job that is not done. I suggest there might be more incentive to the Department to fill a vacancy if the job at the top of the pile were left vacant. Then there might be more of a hurry to fill that vacancy and streamline the procedures. But while everybody has a vested interest in getting higher duties allowance there is little likelihood that the position will be filled as speedily as it perhaps might otherwise be filled. The recruitment times are clearly too long. I recognise that the Government is trying to do something, but this is something which I personally shall be keeping a close eye upon because throughout the Public Service this is a most unacceptable state of affairs. Lastly, I wish to move to the question of the administration charge and to draw attention to the fact that the figures that were given to us in the estimates were based on a projected student number. From answers to questions, I think we find that there was no account taken of the discouraging effect of this fee, and this concerns me a lot. I asked whether the Department had projected less growth than it would normally have done, taking into account that the $250 levy must have some sort of discouraging effect in some areas, I asked: Has no allowance been made for that? The answer was: No. The estimates are based on the student body as in 1986 with the factors that we know about in terms of growth for 1987. I observed that the Department would surely also know about the claims by the tertiary institutions that they would in fact lose numbers from part time students as they are liable to the levy; and especially when they are doing single subjects. That apparently was not taken into account. Clearly it should have been. Anybody who was thinking clearly about this matter would have realised that there has to be a disincentive in this. I think we will have much more to say on this in time to come, so I will not elaborate on it and go into too much detail. I am particularly concerned about the number of women who are supporting families, who may not in fact be on the supporting parent's benefit but who, nevertheless, had insufficient education in their youth and wish to become self-supporting, perhaps independent of their former spouses, and to raise their children by means of a good standard of living achieved through their own endeavours. To do that, further education is vital. With family responsibilities, and perhaps also a part time job, their chances of getting that further education are very slim unless they do it subject by subject each year. A $250 levy on each of those subjects is cruel. An incompetent government would allow this to happen-or possibly a very devious government. I say that deliberately. The number of people who are trying to get into our tertiary institutions has been variously estimated from about 9,000 to about 13,000. All these people are trying unsuccessfully to get into the tertiary institutions of our country. A large number of places in our institutions are taken up with mature students doing part time, single subjects courses. One has to wonder whether this is an attempt to release the Go-vernment from its embarrassment and deliberately to cause full time places to be made. I shall be looking at that matter to see just what happens. Most honourable senators will have heard from institutions and student bodies on this. Sadly, so often the individual is going to be very disadvantaged by this arrangement. I am particularly concerned about the people who are trying to get through their education gradually. One wonders just why the Department's officers come to the Estimates Committee hearings and say that no allowance has been made for the discouraging effect of this $250 levy. Surely if the Department were at all competent it would have made such an assessment. I believe it must have. Certainly the Government must have made that assessment and decided that the end justified the means. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.00) —I rise to support the statements made by Senator Reid on the problem of the English as a second language cuts which have been proposed by the Government. The Jupp Review of Multicultural Programs was quite strong on the need for specialist teachers in this area. Mr Cavalier was quite vocal about the abandonment of the Whitlam vision as he was forced to cut into other programs, once the Government decided to save some face on this program. I would like to know whether it is a matter of Government policy to be putting more and more of the funding responsibility for ESL teaching on to the States, how evenly that has been taken up by each of the States and what the Government is actually planning to do in the Australian Capital Territory. I seek leave at this stage to incorporate in Hansard a letter from Mr Richard Walsham, the Acting Secretary of the Australian Teachers Federation, which will, I think, put the point very clearly. I have had permission from the previous Minister at the table, the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), and from honourable senators on both sides of the chamber to do this. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Sir, The Federal Government has made a disgraceful decision in deciding to slash the English as a Second Language Program by $30 million, or 45 per cent, and abolish the Multicultural Education Program in the recent Budget. The Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, claimed the cuts were essential but regrettable. In fact, we have it on good authority that the cuts could have been avoided. An option that was under consideration by the Government was to cut handouts to the wealthy private schools. This was ruled out, however, because we understand an unholy alliance of the wealthy private school lobby and the Catholic Bishops made it clear they would make trouble for the Government if wealth and privilege were touched. In this respect, this lobby group, and the Catholic Bishops who were prepared to sell out their own ESL programs in the process, share responsibility with the Government for jeopardising the welfare of thousands of migrant children. By leaving the wealthy private schools untouched, this Government has demonstrated that ``restraint with equity'' is just hollow rhetoric. Senator Ryan might care to explain how she reconciles her willingness to sacrifice migrant children at the altar of wealth and privilege with her claims to be a champion of equal opportunity. So much for ``tough'' decisions! RICHARD WALSHAM, Acting General Secretary, Australian Teachers' Federation, Carlton South, Vic. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Committee. I would be very pleased if the Minister now at the table, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), could comment on the suggestion put forward by this group, the Australian Teachers Federation, in its letter to the Australian Financial Review, that in this case it ended up being a choice between ESL cuts and cuts for funding for some classes of private schools, and that ESL lost out. I passed on to the Minister a case where retrospective payments were sought under the secondary allowances scheme. The material provided to my constituent was not always complete, nor was it always accurate. At no time did this particular constituent get a proper statement of the reasons as required under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. The constituent was not in a position to push the refusal further. However, since then legal sources have indicated that this is a fairly common occurrence within the Department of Education. A lot of people will be disadvantaged if it is the case that, under the secondary allowance scheme, people are not getting the right amount of information for them to be able to apply further under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. I ask the Minister whether efforts are being made to train departmental officers so that they can give clear and accurate statements of reasons and provide all the relevant information that applicants will require if they do want to make appeals in these matters. We do not teach students how to handle the bureaucracy within our schools. That is quite a problem which the Department of Education might like to take up. This is compounded by the fact that the various offices apparently do not volunteer the information as to how appeals in these matters can be pursued. I believe it should be a matter of standard form and practice that this information is given to students. Can the Minister comment on what information is given to people when they are refused certain types of benefits? I briefly raise the interaction between the Department of Education and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs when overseas students have difficulty paying the newly- imposed fees. The Committee was provided with information that 19 overseas students had their study terminated in 1985-86; in one case it was for poor academic progress and in the rest it was because of the non-payment of overseas students charges. It is a serious matter for those students. I recall that there was a case of poor academic progress last year which was hotly disputed, after which the student was allowed back into Australia to continue his studies. It seemed that academic progress was distinctly related to the non-payment of fees in that case. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs said that in 1985-86, 16 students had been referred to it for the non-payment of fees. Of those, six students subsequently paid up and were reinstated to their studies; two left voluntarily; two were deported, and six just disappeared. This financial year three students have been deported-one left voluntarily. That is as much information as we were able to gather in the Estimates committee from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I have had some correspondence about a Malaysian student, Jee Shoong Chin, who was desperately trying to raise the money from his family. His offer to pay $2,000 as an initial instalment while he scraped around for the rest, working part time to do it, apparently was refused at one stage. He may have left the country voluntarily at this stage, but we do not know. He may have just disappeared. As these fees continue to increase under the Government's pressure, topped up by other fees and inflationary measures which affect students, could the Minister for Education consider issuing guidelines making it possible for students to pay these sums in several instalments where there is hardship? I believe that this would save a lot of unproductive activity in rounding up and getting rid of people from the country, which the committee found was happening. Each one of these cases is a tragedy. It affects individuals. It is extremely important to them. I hope that the Government takes a humanitarian view on this matter and ensures that the proper and reasonable guidelines are being followed by the institutions in which these students are studying. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.08) —A miscellany of questions has been asked both of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who was representing the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), and now of me. I think the best thing for me to do is simply to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard some pieces of information which, I think, go to most of the points that have been raised. In the first instance I seek leave, in response to Senator Reid and Senator Vigor, to incorporate in Hansard a response on the question of the restoration of the Budget cuts to the English as a second language program. Secondly, in response to Senator Newman, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a ministerial response on the subject of the higher education administration charge. It is a description of the Government's position on that. Thirdly, in response to Senator Macklin, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a response on the subject of the funding of Commonwealth education centres, which I understand he raised. Fourthly, in response to Senator Newman again, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a ministerial response on the subject of the payment of secondary allowances to students under Austudy. Given the bulk of the material involved and given my conspicuous lack of mastery of it, and also given the fact that I did not hear the questions in most instances, I think that would be the most appropriate way of proceeding. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- In dealing with the existing difficult economic conditions, the Government has been obliged to pursue the most rigorous economies in all areas of public expenditure. Schools funding could not be an exception. Nevertheless the Minister has undertaken to consider sympathetically any requests from school authorities for extra funding for ESL activities as part of the increases, amounting to some $38 million in Commonwealth general recurrent funding in 1987 under resource agreements. Furthermore, the Minister directed that in allocating funds under the Participation and Equity Program, overall priority is to be given to disadvantaged students from non-English speaking backgrounds. In addition to these measures, $4 million will be made available, from a reallocation of funds, to assist mainstream teachers address the English language needs of students who need additional help to become fluent in English. We have also accelerated the finalisation of a national language policy which will be an important means of integrating, streamlining and upgrading all government education programs for migrants and ethnic communities. In the case of NSW, an arrangement has been reached which should ensure that no ESL teachers are dismissed or redeployed, and no ESL programs are stopped. This will be achieved by giving an additional $4.8m of the extra General Recurrent funding for NSW government schools in 1987 to ESL. In addition to the extra $1.5m provided by the NSW Government, this will fully offset the $7.3m Budget cut for ESL in NSW government schools. In an extremely difficult budgetary climate, the Government has had to carefully examine alternative funding strategies in order to maintain its policy of steady planned growth in the higher education sector. The Government has consistently rejected the reintroduction of tertiary tuition fees, which are now openly advocated by the Liberal Party and no doubt supported by the National Party. The Government has not reintroduced tuition fees and will not introduce tuition fees. Instead the Government has looked to the administrative side of institutions' expenditure and decided to introduce a charge of $250 per student per year as a contribution towards the administrative costs of institutional budgets. The imposition of this charge was taken having regard to overall economic circumstances and the need to maintain enrolment growth in higher education. There will be an extra 2,700-3,300 intakes in 1987. This will bring to around 36,800 the growth in higher education places since we assumed office in 1983. A large proportion of these extra places are being taken up by young school leavers and disadvantaged groups in the community. In 1987 the participation rate in higher education of 17-19 year olds is expected to be at the highest level ever recorded in Australia-a remarkable turn around from the disastrous days of the former Government when the rates fell. On equity grounds, the Government has ensured that certain categories of students will either be exempted from the charge or be compensated for it. These include institutions' own award holders, student assistance scheme beneficiaries, subsidised and full fee overseas students and certain pensioner and beneficiary students. In all, it is estimated that some 127,000 higher education students will not be affected by the charge. In addition, where the imposition of the charge could influence a student's decision to enrol, institutions will be able to assist students through the Special Assistance for Students program, established by this Government in 1985 to provide low interest loans and grants to needy students. By the time the administration charge is first implemented, the Government will have made available over $11 million for institutional funds under this scheme for loans and grants. The scope of the scheme will be extended to cover higher education students who do not at present have access to funds under the scheme. The Government's decision, announced in the 1986-87 Budget, to reduce the level of funding in the Schools Commission's Education Centres Program has been made in response to the need to reduce overall expenditure within the public sector. Major reductions have occurred in many programs across most departments consistent with the Government's policy of restraint with equity. In the Education Centres Program the Government chose to reduce the overall budget by some 30 per cent and yet at the same time maintain the maximum number of centres consistent with sustaining a viable education centre network serving both urban and rural areas. The Government decided to sustain a reduced number of centres rather than attempt to distribute a limited basket of resource among all thirty-two existing centres. As a consequence no more than one centre will in future be supported in each capital city and a small reduction has also been made in the number of rural centres receiving support in 1987. It is open to all existing education centres to seek funding under appropriate national elements of other Commonwealth programs, such as the Projects of National Significance Program. I have already announced grants for 1987 to enable four centres, which otherwise would have received no Commonwealth funding, to build upon their particular areas of expertise. These are Bayside, Tableland and Warwick (Qld) and Port Pirie Education Centre (SA). In its original consideration of administrative arrangements for the age-related scheme, the government thought it appropriate that payment of the secondary allowance should continue to be made to the parent. This decision was reflected in 1985-86 Budget announcements about the new scheme. Such an arrangement already operates under the Secondary Allowances Scheme (SAS). It has the advantage of enabling parents on low incomes to use the allowance in accordance with priorities aimed at the general welfare of the family. The question was reconsidered, however, in the light of the fact that AUSTUDY allowances would be taxable in the hands of the recipient. The decision to tax the allowance had been made, not to reduce net entitlements, but to achieve consistency with tertiary and adult secondary allowances, which are already taxable in 1986. The Government was concerned that the value of the secondary allowance might be seriously eroded through the effects of taxation if paid to the parent. While the parent would have the option of re-directing payment to the student and so making it taxable in the latter's hands, it was feared that many parents might accept the allowance themselves without full awareness of the taxation consequences. The revised decision to pay the AUSTUDY allowance to the student in all cases was designed therefore to minimise any loss through taxation. Very few secondary students receiving the allowance would have sufficient other income to cause them to pay tax. The new arrangement is consistent with the one that has always operated with regard to payment of allowances to post-secondary students, even those in the 16-17 years age group. Senator GARETH EVANS —There was a further question asked by Senator Vigor about the fees payable by overseas students. He raised the question as to whether or not it might be possible to provide for payment by instalment. On this subject I am able to say that all overseas students are aware before they come to Australia that they are required to pay the overseas student charge in full. There is no provision in the legislation for the charge to be waived or paid by instalment. Significant administrative resources would be involved were the Government to adopt such an approach. Nonetheless, there has been a request-certainly by overseas students themselves-that the Government further consider the possibility of students paying the fee by instalments. The Minister for Education has, in response to that, already asked her officials to analyse the costs and benefits of an instalment payment approach. Following receipt of this analysis a decision will be taken by her in consultation, of course, with her ministerial colleagues. So that particular matter has been taken on board. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.11) —I thank the Minister. I cannot comment on the reply as I do not know what the reply was, but I understand the problem that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) is facing. I just hope that the reply includes an explanation-if it does not, may I have a subsequent comment in writing?-of the material in Press releases about these centres in which Senator Ryan said, for example, that the Bayside centre had considerable potential for providing useful educational advice to the Commonwealth and that this grant would help the centre fulfil that potential; and that the Warwick centre was a very useful resource for teachers. My perplexity is over why the Government first of all sought to terminate their study on the one hand and take away their grants and, on the other hand, to issue a flurry of Press releases patting itself on the back for giving them some money which was less than they were originally getting. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.12) —To the extent that that matter is not fully addressed, as I understand it, in a document I just had incorporated, I will ensure that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) gives a written reply to Senator Macklin, as he requests. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.13) —We had a discussion a little while ago about the English as a second language program. I was slightly concerned that no mention was made in that discussion of the impact on the Catholic education system of the Government's decision about that program. Senator Macklin —We have a Bill coming up and it will be debated then. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That may be, but there is a perception in the community that in fact the problem has been solved. It has not been solved. The reality is that the Commonwealth's pledge to restore fully ESL Budget cuts applied only to state schools and not to the Catholic school system. Senator Macklin may know more than I do about the Government's intentions, but an article in last Sunday's Sun-Herald newspaper states: The Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, said when she announced restoration of public school ESL funding that she had held constructive discussion with the NSW Catholic education authorities on ways in which their ESL cut could be absorbed without any adverse effects on classroom teachers or students. The newspaper went on: But a spokesman for Senator Ryan has admitted that a funding agreement has still not been signed between the CEC and the Commonwealth. The Government was still waiting for the CEC's `proposal' . . . As I understand it, the widespread misconception that the problem has been solved is far from the truth in respect of the element of the education system which probably has a greater proportion of migrants than any other, that is, the Catholic education system. The Government is clearly giving the impression that funds have been restored; but it has not coughed up an extra cent for the Catholic education system. According to the General Secretary of the New South Wales Independent Teachers Federation, Mr Michael Raper, something like 8,000 migrant children will miss out on English as a second language classes next year because of these delays and what he described as deadlocked negotiations. I am surprised that Senator Macklin says that it will all be settled in a Bill which will come up next week or very shortly. There is no indication of a Bill being anything like ready to cope with the specific problem. That is what concerns me. The loss of 130 teaching jobs, as well as the fact that 8,000 migrant children will miss out on English as a second language classes, is also a matter of concern. Mr Raper has said that no compromise appears to be in sight before the beginning of the first term of next year. In his view, the Government is being very stubborn and will not back down on the cuts. A totally false impression has been generated about how the problem has been resolved. I would like the Government to come a little cleaner on this matter and to say what its intentions really are, what is the hold-up and why greater progress is not being made. Is there a real risk that by the first term of next year this problem will not have been resolved? It has been alleged that it will not be resolved by the first term of next year. If the General Secretary of the New South Wales Independent Teachers Federation is wrong, let us hear a statement from the Minister, Senator Ryan, establishing just how wrong he is. At the moment there is clearly cause for major concern within the Catholic education system about whether the problem has been anything like resolved. As I say, it is a serious matter. It is claimed that in New South Wales alone 8,000 migrant children will be affected. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(11.17) —It seems that I have arrived at the right time as Senator Michael Baume's outburst would have been extremely misleading to the Committee. He quoted Michael Raper in respect of the response of the Catholic education system in New South Wales to Budget decisions. Michael Raper does not speak for the Catholic education system. He is a trade unionist who represents teachers, some of whom work in the Catholic system. He has not been involved in the negotiations about the ongoing provision of programs that may have been affected by Budget decisions; nor do I expect that he will be. Those negotiations have been at a very high level and have included negotiations between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and me, Bishop Murphy, who is now the Chairman of the Catholic Education Commission, and Brother Taylor, who is the Director of the Catholic Education Office. The negotiations have been along the lines that there is adequate room in the very great increases in the general recurrent program funds flowing to Catholic schools in New South Wales to make the necessary adjustments so that the essential services to migrant children can continue. Those agreements in principle have been reached at the highest level and are being worked out. It is true that the resource agreements to be made between the Commonwealth and the Catholic education system are not yet concluded. The reason for that is not specifically any lack of common purpose with regard to the use of general recurrent funds in the English as a second language area, but that those resource agreements cover a range of areas. Those resource agreements cover the use of the entire extra general recurrent funding which will flow to New South Wales under our four-year legislative program. A number of programs are to be negotiated. Senator Michael Baume may not be aware of the structure of the administration of Catholic education in New South Wales, which is regionalised through the various dioceses. So, there needs to be negotiation and settlement of the use of funds for particular purposes not only by the Catholic Education Commission but also with the Catholic Education Commission as a result of fairly extensive negotiations with the various dioceses throughout New South Wales. I can assure Senator Michael Baume that ad-equate funding is available for the education of migrant children, indeed all Catholic children, in New South Wales. If Senator Michael Baume would like to look at the net increases in Commonwealth funding for Catholic schools in New South Wales, he would see that they are very considerable. It is true that the Catholic system attracts a high proportion of migrant children. Therefore, those children are beneficiaries not only of ESL programs but also of a whole range of other programs in which the Catholic education system participates: The disadvantaged schools program, the participation and equity program, the country areas program, the basic learning in primary schools program and so on. I recently had the pleasure of opening extensions to Casimir College in Marrickville, which is a very good example of a Catholic school which has a very high enrolment-about 90 per cent-of children from migrant backgrounds. That school is attracting in the vicinity, I think, of $1m in general recurrent funds each year. It has attracted a number of major capital grants. The migrant children in that school are benefiting from all of those things. The school is involved in the disadvantaged schools programs, it receives PEP funding and so on. All of these programs are flowing to the benefit of the migrant children in that school. As I said, it is a typical example of a Catholic school with a high migrant enrolment. In the case of the changes made to ESL, we indicated in the original Budget decision that we believed that there was scope in the extra unallocated general recurrent program for any slack to be made up. As I said, we have in-principle agreement that that will be the way we will proceed. It is now for the Catholic Education Commission to negotiate that agreement throughout its own system. I believe that that will be satisfactorily done. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.23) —I thank the Minister for her very full and reasonable response. I take the point she made-she confirmed the point I made-that a much higher proportion of migrant children require English as a second language funding within the Catholic education system than within the state system. As a result, the removal of this funding has had a far more severe impact on the Catholic education system. Senator Ryan —No. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As the Catholic education system has a higher proportion of migrant children, one would think that the removal of the funding for the English as a second language program would, of necessity and by mathematical definition, have a far greater impact. Whilst I agree with the Minister that recurrent funding has quite properly increased for the system as a whole, the fact remains that the reason the funding increased was soundly based before any decisions about removing the ESL budget were made. In those circumstances, whilst I acknowledge what the Minister has said about seeking to make up the funds within the existing recurrent grants, the fact is that the Catholic system must of necessity have been harder hit, particularly in some regions. I take the Minister's point that it is up to the Catholic Education Commission to allocate the money. But clearly some regions of the Catholic education system will have been much harder hit than the state system because there is a higher intensity of migrant students within the Catholic system. I would have hoped that a more generous approach would have been adopted, recognising the budgetary constraints under which the Government is labouring because of its failure to cut so many programs which perhaps merit cutting which are politically more attractive than ESL. I repeat: A clear impression is being conveyed that the whole matter has been resolved, when in fact it has not yet been resolved in relation to Catholic schools. Should I take it from what the Minister has said that there is an assurance that the matter will be totally resolved by the beginning of first term next year so that there will be no threat to the program from the beginning of the next school year? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(11.25) —That is certainly the understanding that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and I reached with the people who are responsible at the top for the system. I repeat that in terms of the effect of Budget decisions on the Catholic education system it has come out clearly in front because of the very substantial increases in general recurrent funds. I would not like Senator Michael Baume to think that all those increases had already been taken up by wage and salary increases and unavoidable things of that kind. A proportion, the part to be the subject of resource agreements, is over and above all those costs. There is also a cost supplementation mechanism. In a sense it was free money to be allocated to the things that emerged as being of major importance to both the Commonwealth and the system. There is an agreement that in parts of the Catholic system the language needs of migrant children have a very high priority. So I can give Senator Michael Baume those assurances. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Housing and Construction Proposed expenditure, $573,592,000. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.26) —I have had information from bank officers that some applicants for grants under the first home owners scheme have entered into a number of contrived arrangements for one year to qualify for benefits or have had substantial net assets which are able to be screened from the Department of Housing and Construction but which in any case the Department seems prepared to ignore. A number of qualifications must be met for an applicant to receive the subsidy available under the first home owners scheme. The most important test is that of taxable income. The income test applies to the combined income of the person or persons applying. Full benefits are payable up to a combined income of $20,000 with a shade-out provision which reaches up to $27,900 per annum, after which no benefit is payable. Payments under the scheme are made on a monthly basis over five years, which amount to $4,000 for people with no dependent children, $5,500 if there is one dependent child and $6,000 if there are two dependent children. I have received complaints from bank officers processing loans whose applicants are receiving the first home owners grant. Some applicants are able legally to show only $20,000 of joint taxable income by holding excess earnings in trust accounts, in business names or by other such devices. For applicants to receive bank loans they must complete statutory declarations showing all income, assets and liabilities. It is common apparently to receive applications showing net assets of $150,000 or more. Once the first home owners loan has been approved there is no reassessment of income so people are not forced to rig their earnings for more than one year. The bank officers who approached me thought that it was quite wrong for wealthy people to get this assistance, thus denying funds to the needy. There is a case to include some type of net assets or associated income test which would bring this benefit into line with some of the other benefits which the Government is putting forward, perhaps for much needier cases. Is the Government examining ways to cut down on this and other types of cheating to ensure that more of the available funds go to people who really need the assistance? Is it using the powers it has to get hold of the statutory declarations which would give it the ability to pursue the people to recover some money for the taxpayers? Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.30) —I am particularly concerned about information that was revealed through the estimates of the Department of Housing and Construction. This matter should be of major concern to the whole country. I refer to the housing of our Defence Force families. I recognise that the Government has made an announcement that a defence housing authority will be set up. I am concerned that an interim authority was to be set up this year. There has been no sign of it and clearly it is not on the books for this year, after all. I understand that no legislation will be introduced for the complete authority before the middle of next year. In the meantime, we are presiding over, and have for many years, a disastrous situation in defence housing. The total stock of defence houses is 22,941. Of those, 13,147, or nearly 60 per cent, are considered by the Department to be sub-standard. What country could possible hold up its head when it puts 60 per cent of its servicemen in sub-standard housing? This year $69m has been allocated in the appropriations for the refurbishment and construction of defence houses. That will be part of the $750m which is to be spent over 10 years on the improvement and upgrading of defence housing. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) recently said that he expected to spend between $70m and $80m this year, so I draw attention first to the Budget disappointment that we find not a $70m or $80m grant for defence housing but a $69m grant. It is not good enough in the first year of a desperately needed program. According to the information we obtained in Estimates Committee hearings, this financial year it is intended that 571 houses will be upgraded. That will be at a cost of $1.9m out of the $69m. That leaves 12,576 houses still not upgraded. We have a long way to go. The average cost of renovations will be $35,700 per prefabricated dwelling or $6,500 for a non-prefab dwelling. How many private citizens would regard it as a good venture to put $35,700 into upgrading what is still, when finished, a prefab dwelling? These prefabs have been around for very many years. They have been lived in and often resented by many service families. I cannot decide whether that is an acceptable business practice. Nevertheless, we are upgrading 571 houses this financial year. Thank goodness, 480 houses will be taken out of defence housing stock this financial year. Most defence families will say `Good riddance' because for the houses to be taken out of stock they must be very bad. Our servicemen live in slums. The quicker we get rid of the slums the better it will be. New works and acquisitions under the appropriations will make another 550 dwellings available. It is possible that another 30 will be made available under exchange or lease agreements by the end of the financial year. A further $14.5m is planned to be spent on the maintenance of defence-owned houses. It is vital that this program increase in momentum. My particular concern is that we are not spending wisely what little money we have. Three years ago, for example, houses were built at Canungra. I will quote from the answer I received in the Estimates Committee hearing about this. I am concerned that something like this could happen. The answer was: Tenders for the design and construction of 27 houses-at Canungra-to comply with Defence Scales . . . closed in January 1979 with no offer conforming to the requirements of the scales and standards. I was told that discussions took place. The answer continued: The revised designs were considered jointly by Army and DHC and the amended offer submitted by Jennings Industries Ltd was in accordance with the scales and standards and the specification, offered good quality commercial design at a competitive cost and satisfied Army's requirements. The amended offer was then accepted and a contract awarded accordingly. But what happened after that? Subsequent to the houses being completed, the Department of Defence downgraded the 12 houses of high set design for rental purposes. We have a bungling in this area. We cannot get Housing and Construction, Defence and the contractors together so that we are getting value for our housing dollar. Apparently we are not able to pick up a house from the project designs available on the open market and simply say that we will have 10 here and 20 there at a bulk price for the lot, with the houses then being allocated regardless. The Defence Department is so hung up on its specifications and its scales for rank that we get the stupid anomalies of houses being built and then perhaps being downgraded to be allocated to other ranks. This is not an isolated instance of bungling. That is not the only concern I have in that area. I draw the attention of the Committee to the unit costs that were given to us in the Estimates. These houses are being built this financial year across Australia for the Department of Defence under the auspices of the Department of Housing and Construction. The cost for 13 houses in Bendigo will be $80,769 per house. Senator Michael Baume —That excludes land or anything else? Senator NEWMAN —It excludes land. It includes fences, gates, landscaping and connecting the services. At Blackburn in Victoria the unit cost of 32 houses is $114,687. Senator Michael Baume —You could buy the same sort of thing from a developer for about $70,000. Senator NEWMAN —Quite. I move to Tasmania. Two houses will be built at Devonport at $85,000 a pop. I am sorry that Senator Grimes is not in the chamber because he knows as well as I do that one could do very well thank you in Devonport buying a house with $85,000. I emphasise here that I do not begrudge the servicemen good housing; they must have good housing. I have lived in too many service houses not to know that they need better housing than they are getting. But the money available for service housing is not being wisely spent. I refer to a house being built at Darwin. This is a representational house and I recognise that it comes into a different ball park. This one house referred to in the estimates is expected to cost $230,000. To give the Department of Housing and Construction its due, when we raised this question at the Estimates Committee hearing the Department stated that the estimate had been downgraded and the house was expected to cost only $205,000. The Committee might be interested to know just what that house will consist of. It will be a two-storey house, as so many are in Darwin. The ground floor area consists of a toilet, a laundry, a garage and lock-up store totalling 51.5 square metres. Upstairs, the living area of the house will be 191 square metres, making a total of 242.5 square metres. Taking just the living area upstairs, that works out at about $820 per square metre. I have taken the trouble to get some quotes from Darwin. I find that they vary considerably, as one would expect. One quote for a house of 204 square metres upstairs gives a cost, including the cost of the connection of services-as the Department of Housing and Construction calculates its figures-of $100,000. Another quote is up to $170,000 depending on other costs. One could add to that $2,500 for the fence. I have to ask: What is the taxpayer getting for the money that he is spending and are enough houses being built for servicemen when we are spending money in that way? These are not isolated cases. In Townsville 15 houses will be built at a unit cost of $93,000-odd. At Hoppers Crossing there will be 24 at $80,000. At Puckapunyal there will be 31 at $83,000. I could go on but I shall not hold up the Committee on this. The list is in the estimates and I draw the attention of honourable senators to it. I have to say that I do not believe we are getting the value we should. I think the Department of Housing and Construction has been conditioned over the years to being got at. The people who are contracting for Government jobs see the Government coming. The Department denied that when I put it to it but I think most people would have to say that they are not the prices they would accept if they were putting up their own money. I would like to see Defence personnel housed in the sort of housing that most average Australians would expect to live in but at a cost of building those houses that the average person in Australia would expect to pay. A further problem in this area is that there is a very bureaucratic arrangement relating to the maintenance of Defence housing. We have seen the result of that over the years. It is due largely to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which fortunately is now being phased out in this area. It can only be for the long term good of the Services that Defence ends up controlling its own houses. One has to be a Treasury official to work out how the system has operated. The appropriation appears in the Housing and Construction estimates but it is actually Defence money. The program is drawn up by the Department of Defence but Housing and Construction is the vehicle by which the money is appropriated. Work is carried out by the State housing authorities, which also receive money from the Commonwealth for rent for the houses. The Department of Housing and Construction is not asked to supervise the maintenance. The end result is that servicemen are living in unsatisfactory, badly maintained housing and it is just not acceptable. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.41) —The point Senator Newman raised is very serious and extends beyond contractors seeing the Department of Housing and Construction coming and hitting special prices for governmental housing. The reality is that there is massive incompetence in the specification and components within Defence housing. It is traditional, I suppose, within governments that once a set of specifications has been established it is difficult for governments to be sufficiently mobile to keep it up to date, to respond to the market. The simple fact is that it costs a lot more to build a government home because, in many instances, of nonsensical requirements put by this Department, the ludicrous specifications set by this Department-- Senator Newman —And by Defence. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Yes. These are totally unnecessary, do not fit into good commercial practice and add massively to the cost of each house. Senator Newman has outlined the ludicrous expense involved in building an ordinary, reasonable house for Defence purposes, which is far greater than the cost of buying a house of similar quality from a developer. I asked the Housing Industry Association about this matter. Its letter to me of 10 November this year states: Our investigations show, since receiving your letter, that when standard components are not used in public housing or any other housing, the cost escalation is in the order of 20%-30%. I had asked specifically about windows. The letter continues: Our advice from window manufacturers indicates that many specifications are only millimetres outside standards. Furthermore, when colour matching is required using non-standard colours, one can assume that changes to non-standard sizes and colours will increase the costs by 40%-50%. The sizes specified in government housing requirements cannot be met on long production runs and this increases the cost. It is ludicrous that public housing in Canberra and for defence forces elsewhere is being inefficiently produced by this Department and this Government because the Department is not following specifications and standards that are acceptable and reasonable. One has to ask what is the reason for the enormous difference between the figures Senator Newman gave and what is a reasonable figure. This is clearly the explanation. I have received another letter from someone in the housing industry who knows what he is talking about. I would like to quote from parts of it. The letter has been sent to the Joint Committee of the Australian Capital Territory and to the Secretary of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. The correspondent wishes to bring to my attention the gross waste of public money in the current program of construction of government housing in the Australian Capital Territory. He states: I have been involved in the ACT residential housing construction industry for approximately 10 years as an employee of a material supplier . . . and in my capacity as an estimator have an adequate knowledge of construction costs of simple dwellings. . . . the NCDC is causing gross overspending on each cottage constructed by individual successful tenderers, by farming out to local and interstate architectural groups, guidelines and parameters which then become monuments to architects and NCDC town planners. The charges these architects levy to design a group of simple 3-bedroom cottages of approximately 10 squares must be horrendous. What they specify in these houses would make the State Housing Commissions scream with envy. I can specifically and knowledgeably relate to the cost of windows and would advise you that the average cost of a set of windows in a `government designed' public house is approximately twice the price of a similar sized house designed and built by any medium sized local builder. He raises these questions: Why does the NCDC permit such over specification of certain materials, when there are any number of builders in the ACT who would design, specify and construct simple 10 square three-bedroom housing for 15 to 20 thousand dollars less per house than is currently the case under the present system? . . . . A saving of 15 thousand dollars in a house could be put to use in building more housing of a simpler but nonetheless comfortable and perfectly adequate nature, just as many low cost budget price houses are being constructed and more importantly approved, every day by professional private builders. Why does public housing have to cost more per unit than private housing, without there being an evidently higher standard involved in the end product? I think this Department has an awful lot to answer for. I remember last year during the consideration of the Estimates we looked at some townhouses being built in Sydney by this Department for the Department of Defence. The cost was $96,000, as I recall, for three-bedroom units. That price did not include the buying of any land; it was government land. These sorts of expenses are just indefensible. One other point I would like to make is that the Government is participating in a program, through this Department, called the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Last year the Government appropriated $650,000 for this program and this year $625,000 is to be appropriated. I might say that that is at variance with the Press release put out by the Federal Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr West, in June this year, when he said that the Government had approved $750,000 for this year. Obviously, $125,000 has been quietly chopped off, or maybe there is some other explanation. The reality is that $1.3m will have been spent on this program for the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Naturally, I asked what this would be spent on. No one would be terribly surprised to find out that none of it will be spent on housing the homeless. The biggest single item I can see relates to promotion and public relations. Of the $1.3m, a total of a quarter of a million dollars will be spent on promotion and public relations. Obviously, the Government will seek to use this program-as it uses so many programs-to promote itself. No doubt there will be pictures of Stewart West, or perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), as is the case in most of the other bunkum programs which are aimed more at promoting the Government than at solving any basic problems. There will be expenditure of $100,000 on a video. When I asked what it was all about, I was told that no new construction would be funded under this IYSH program. The response given to the question I asked during the Senate Estimates committee hearing was this: . . . the primary focus of IYSH in Australia is directed towards reviewing, developing and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of existing policies and programs. These are housing programs. Who runs the housing programs? Governments run them, particularly the Federal Government. So this program appears to be directed towards reviewing, developing and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of existing policies and programs by the Government. Why does the Government have to spend a quarter of a million dollars on a promotion campaign to tell itself how to fix up its policies? The response continued: It is envisaged that by spending relatively small amounts through IYSH to undertake this review process, current levels of funding for housing may be able to be used more effectively and efficiently. I add by way of parenthesis `by governments', because they are the ones who run the programs. I find it incredible that we are spending $1.3m on a program to advise the Federal Government, in particular, how to fix up its apparently incompetent or inadequate housing programs. That is the clear implication of this statement. The response continues: The three key aims that have been identified for IYSH in Australia are: 1. Improving the effectiveness of the current housing programs and relevant aid programs. 2. Increasing the contribution of the government, private and community sectors towards assisting the homeless and inadequately housed. 3. Encouraging innovation and equity in the use of the low cost housing. No doubt there is an attempt to seek participation by private community sectors, and I acknowledge that. The reality is that the bulk of this allocation is clearly aimed at smartening up the role of government. I wonder to what extent that is achieved by the sorts of programs we see being funded by Mr West's three-quarters of a million dollar program. Let us look at one of the projects. One is to provide $7,300 to the First Fremantle Housing Collective to produce a personalised account of and a technical guide to the history and development of the First Fremantle Housing Collective. Maybe there is great merit in the Government advising itself about what went on and how that money was spent; but if the Government wants to find out what went on, does it have to go through all of the public relations bulldust that is involved in this program and provide money to this group to do so? The list goes on and on. There are pages and pages. An amount of $3,500 is allocated to the National Youth Coalition for Housing to produce master copies and a written summary of a one-hour and four 20-minute videotapes of the National Youth Housing Conference held in Wollongong in 1985 from the 12 hours of existing footage. The tapes will comprise a one-hour conference overview videotape, a videotape on women and housing, a videotape to be tailored to fit into the NYCH national shelter education kit, and so on. In other words, this promotional stuff is aimed at making it appear that the Government is doing something positive to fix up its own inadequate housing policies. There is no point in having it unless it is to fix up policies that are clearly inadequate, on the Government's own admission. This is directed towards reviewing, developing and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of existing policies and programs, and it is costing us $1.3m in very publicly spent, highly promoted taxpayers' money to do so. Is there a need for this area to be smartened up? Apparently there is, because in April 1984 the Department commissioned consultants to undertake a study into homelessness and inadequate housing. The consultants estimated: Around Australia, possibly 40,000 people sleep out of doors or in refuges. Perhaps 60,000 live on the verge of homelessness, without secure tenure and extremely dependent on income maintenance and welfare services. In June 1984, 135,000 households were on waiting lists for State housing authority accommodation. Very rough estimates suggest that 700,000 households in Australia may have insufficient income to live at the poverty line and pay their rent or mortgage costs. Over 240,000 households in the private rental sector pay more than 20 per cent of income in rent. So what is the Government going to do to resolve this problem? It is going to blow $1.3m on a self-congratulatory public promotion which involves no spending whatsoever-- Senator Newman —Typical. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As the honourable senator said, it is typical. It involves no spending whatsoever on actually doing anything to resolve the problem of the homeless. Senator Vigor —They are spending $49.9m overall on advertising. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Exactly. If only this money had been given to an organisation such as the Sydney City Mission, which actually does something about providing shelter for the homeless, or to other organisations. Instead of cutting back on them and making their lives hard, the Government should do something positive, particularly at the lower end, to assist those private sector organisations which provide the most effective help to overcome this very serious problem. Frankly, I am sick of seeing taxpayers money being thrown away on this kind of tawdry promotion aimed at making big fellows of Ministers and the Prime Minister of this country at the expense of the people who should really be getting the benefit. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.56) —The Government recognises that there are housing problems facing Defence Force personnel and it has been quite energetic in taking steps to improve not only the housing stock at bases but also accommodation facilities generally. The Government accepts its responsibility in this respect and it has to be said that the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley-indeed, the Government in totality-has taken every step available to make sure that the needs of our Defence Force personnel are met. I remind the Committee that the problem with the housing stock at our bases and accommodation generally did not begin in March 1983. There was a deliberate policy by the Opposition, when in government, of not making sufficient funds available over the time in which it had ample opportunity to provide funds to obviate the clear deficiency that exists in the housing stocks for Defence Force personnel. We recognise that there is a problem, but it has been a long-standing problem. I think all of us agree that there has been an improvement in private housing and public housing over time. For example, if one put in a new kitchen 20 years ago and one looks at the sorts of kitchens that are available now, one can see the evolution of home improvements generally. The Government takes the view in general terms that nothing is too good for our Defence Force personnel and therefore it is taking steps, having regard to the limitation of funds, to improve dramatically our housing stock. Because of the commonality of Defence Force matters-my own portfolio covers service personnel who are eligible for defence service home loans-I have been in on some of the discussions on these matters. Senator Newman would acknowledge that from my response to her question several days ago. I appreciate her interest because she has had a personal involvement in these problems. There is no doubt that in many cases the housing is sub-standard, but it has been sub-standard for very many years. We are attempting to make up the lag and improve the housing stock generally. To do that, of course, the Minister for Defence has to argue for the allocation of funds. He does that and he then passes the responsibility on to the Department of Housing and Construction for it to realise the Government's objectives in the best way with the scarce public funds made available. It is simply not true to suggest, as has been suggested, that somehow or other there is a misuse of scarce public funds by the Department of Housing and Construction in the carrying out of its obligations in this respect. It is a pity that we get this selectivity of quoting in such a way as to suggest that there is gross maladministration in the Department or that we are not getting the best value for the public dollar. Of course we are. I think that flows from a philosophical view the Opposition has that anything that is done in the public sector must not be any good and can be bettered by the private sector. That view ignores the way in which the Department of Housing and Construction operates because, whilst it is true that the Department is the authority concerned, it invites tenders from the private sector. All DHC Defence houses are constructed through the normal competitive tendering processes. They have regard for the normal market situations, which vary, as I am sure many honourable senators will be aware, from State to State. Prices may fluctuate from region to region even though the same materials are available. Site influences play a part. Drainage and the way in which a house is constructed in relation to the geography of the region are other influencing factors. There is an opportunity for tenders. The Department offers the tenderers an opportunity to submit prices based on their own standard designs. Therefore there is no reason to believe, as has been asserted by Opposition senators, that the Department of Housing and Construction is not receiving normal competitive prices in the tenders for its housing construction program. Of course it is possible to get different prices for different constructions for different reasons. We do not dispute that. But that ignores the additives that exist in this area. The Department accepts that price differences exist, but that does not take into account the selectivity which has been raised by honourable senators of site servicing, fencing, whether a garage or carport is provided and the many components required to make a house habitable-floor coverings, light fittings, built-in wardrobes and all of those extras which make the difference between a standard competitive price and what is ultimately accepted. These extras are part of the Government's determination to provide the highest possible standard of accommodation. That applies not only to group housing but also to the improvement of housing in base areas. I concede to Senator Newman, as I am sure that she would also concede, having seen the standard of housing on some of our bases, that some housing is 30 to 40 years out of date. That is an indictment not of this Government but of the previous Government for its neglect in this area. The Government has accepted the challenge and is taking every possible step within its financial constraints to remedy that. It will take many years to realise the objectives that the Minister for Defence has in these matters. The Committee's first concern was the very high cost per house nationwide. The Committee acknowledged that there were contributing factors and identified some, but it did not exhaust all of the factors. Hence the debate that is taking place. The position is that, given the Defence scales and standards used for service housing, the real determinant of the cost is the tenders received from the construction industry. That, of course, is a matter of contention. We accept that. But the responsibility does not rest in the Senate; it rests with the Department, which is interested in saving funds and applying them in the best possible way. Within the guidelines set out in the Defence brief, the Department of Housing and Construction proceeds on the basis of open competitive tenders. We are dealing here with not only housing but also defence in the specific sense that it is the funding authority. I am advised that the comparative evidence available indicates that the costs of this process are appropriate for the product concerned. We cannot accept that there is any dereliction of duty in respect of the Department or that in some way or other there is a misuse of scarce financial resources. The Department of Defence is responsible for the level of funding provided and it also nominates the areas where it is required so the Department of Housing and Construction has no say in that matter or on the number of houses that need to be upgraded and other factors. Those matters are within the province of the Department of Defence. The Department of Housing and Construction's principal role is to carry out the work in accordance with the level of funding provided and in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Department of Defence. To that extent we can get into a philosophical argument. Generally the Opposition takes the view that all of these things should be done by the private sector. I am sure, that on mature consideration, the Opposition would not want to abolish the Department of Housing and Construction; it would realise that there would need to be a supervisory role and an organisation capable of carrying out government requests. That is the way it has been in all the post-war years. This Government, as any government, will always concede the necessity to look at maintaining an organisation capable of properly supervising the expenditure of public funds. Senator Michael Baume raised some matters in his contribution that clearly indicate that he is off beam about the expenditure of money. He concedes that we are dealing with housing studies for the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless and that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has approved a Press statement. Senator Baume suggested that somehow or other the Government is not interested in the homeless and the great social problems that exist in the homeless area. The International Year of Shelter for the Homeless-I am sure the Opposition on mature consideration would agree-is a project with which we ought to co-operate. The Federal Government has approved more than $750,000 not $1.3m, for 35 housing studies and evaluation projects as the first stage of its contribution to the United Nations International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. There is nothing wrong with that because it has been done in agreement with the organisations that are concerned about homelessness and the needy in the Australian community. I have heard talk about the Chairman of the National Non-Government Co-ordinating Committee, Bishop Peter Hollingworth. Nobody could say that Bishop Hollingworth is not a person of great repute in the whole area of social concern, housing and poverty. He is an acknowledged expert in this area. This research involves looking at the housing needs of not only people in the area we are discussing now but also Aborigines. It involves looking at innovative and brick construction and commenting on the effectiveness of current public housing arrangements. The Government is not about publicising, as Senator Baume has suggested, some defensive position it finds itself in as a result of inheriting a very unsatisfactory state of affairs when it came to office in March 1983. It is about the Government accepting its responsibility. This Government has accepted its responsibility in respect of public housing whether it be for Aborigines, indigenous Australians, Anglo-Saxons or migrants. This Government is spending more money on public housing now than has ever been spent on it before except for the Whitlam era. That is because we recognise our obligations and responsibilities in this area. It ill becomes a senator to suggest that funds have been placed aside for, I understand, the next two years to give ourselves a pat on the back. We are quite capable of doing that. Senator Michael Baume —With our money. Senator GIETZELT —The honourable senator should be the last person to talk about that. He will remember that the previous Government set up great media projects and tried to sell itself as did its counterpart in Queensland in the last Queensland election. That Government spent a considerable amount of money in the election period telling Queenslanders how good it is. What is good for the goose is good for the gander but that is not the issue about which we are concerned. The International Year of Shelter for the Homeless in accordance with our obligation to the United Nations, is not about that but about seeking how best we may get the most out of that scarce public dollar. That is the Government's commitment and that is what the Government is seeking to achieve in the current circumstances. Of course there are many issues on which the Opposition would disagree with the Government but I doubt whether they can be resolved. I am sure my contribution will not convince the Opposition and I am sure the Opposition would concede that its contribution will not convince the Government. We have ideological and philosophical differences. Honourable senators should bear in mind that the Department is about carrying out its obligations in accordance with government policy. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(12.11) —I must make a few comments on the speech of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) because clearly he was not in the chamber when I started speaking or he would not have suggested that I did not recognise that the problem with defence housing is long standing and all governments stand condemned for their inaction over the years. That does not mean to say that his Government is in any way absolved because it has made the right noises. Noises in this Government, plus advertising campaigns, seem to be the method of governing. It is just not good enough. We have had a housing authority which has been trumpeted around the defence forces for months. They are now getting restive; they do not believe it will happen. We have had a defence service home loans scheme review which has been trumpeted around the defence services area for months but nothing seems to be happening there. The Minister referred in his answer a moment ago to the answer-or non-answer I should say-which he gave in this chamber the other day to my question on defence service home loans. If the Minister thinks I am satisfied by that answer he must be very much mistaken. I wish he would stay and listen because he might learn something about it. Obviously, he will run away and leave the chamber rather than learn something about the dissatisfaction in the Services over his inaction on the defence service home loans scheme. Over the last few days we have seen in this chamber how the Minister takes little or no responsibility for the matters in his portfolio. The defence service home loans scheme is clearly within his responsibility. He is taking no action on it and the matter is being allowed to slide. One of the problems with the lack of adequate housing for the defence forces could be considerably improved if he would take some action whereby a review of that scheme would provide for servicemen to buy and sell homes when they were re-posted and would allow them to take up more defence service home loans. In other words it would enable them to provide their own home. But as the Minister said as he was finishing his remarks, his Party and mine have a different philosophical approach to many matters. We would like people to feel that they do not necessarily have to belong to a service ghetto if they have the option of assistance to borrow money to provide their own homes. For example, the British Services are also allowed to rent privately through a scheme whereby the Department of Defence is the head tenant and defence housing is re-let to defence tenants. This brings in a lot more housing of good quality in mixed areas throughout the country for servicemen who are not condemned, as I have said, to live in ghettos. The Government is not required to put too much capital aside in an area where obviously capital will always be scarce. These are positive things which this Government, if it really cared about the defence services and their housing, could do. But does it do anything? No. It makes announcements but it does nothing. In the meantime 60 per cent of service houses are regarded by the Department as sub-standard. That means in some cases we have servicemen in houses without hot water services, servicemen in houses with splits in the floor where cockroaches come through. A rat could walk through some fibro houses in Albury-Wodonga and one could put several men's hands through the holes. It is disgraceful and the Minister's reply just does not come to grips with the matter. I am glad he recognises that we can get more than one price for a house, and some of the evidence that I have given today clearly demonstrates that. I have to ask: Why does not the Department of Housing and Construction manage to come up with better prices than the ones it comes up with now? Why is it that its client department, Defence, produces specifications which add so unduly to the cost of Army and service housing when what we need is good quality average housing, and plenty of it? Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(12.15) —I was particularly disappointed to hear the extraordinary and nonsensical res-ponse by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) to the points that I made about the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, just as I am appalled at his inability to respond to the question of nonsensical specifications which are unnecessarily putting up the price of public housing in Australia. There has been no response to my points about specifications. There has been no response to the letters I read out outlining the 20 to 30 per cent general increase and the 50 per cent increase in respect of windows which specifically affect the National Capital Development Commission. There has been no response to the specific objections relating to what this Government is actually doing. What we did get was an absolutely incredible response to the question of the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. The Minister said: `We are not spending $1.3m'. He said that I am somehow wrong, that the figure is three-quarters of a million dollars. For the Minister's benefit, let me read from the written response to a question I put on notice to the Department of Housing and Construction. I asked: How does Australia's budget for this U.N. year compare with other U.N. member countries? The answer was that the Australian Government appropriated $650,000 in 1985-86 and $625,000 in 1986-87. When I went to school those figures, added together, amounted to almost $1.3m. Maybe the Minister went to a different school or he has run out of fingers and toes, but that was the figure given by the Department. In another question I asked: What proportion of the budget for IYSH has been allocated for promotional? I asked who got the contract, who tendered and so on. If the Ministry needs the answer that was given, I am quite happy to have the table incorporated in Hansard. In fact, in view of the fact that there is now a dispute over the figures, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table from the Department's own response to me on this matter. Leave granted. The table reads as follows- IYSH Promotional Budget Amount Proportion of expenditure $ Per Cent 1984-85 ... 69,887 70.88 1985-86 ... 96,627 21.07 1986-87 ... (est.) 60,000 (est.) 9.6 Total ... (est.) 226,500 (est.) 19.0 Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Committee. The table clearly shows $226,500 as being the total amount spent on promotion. The Minister had the hide to get up here and say that I am totally wrong, that there is no significant promotional impact at all. A quarter of a million dollars, or just under 20 per cent of the total amount of money being spent on the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, is being spent on promoting this Government and, presumably, promoting this Minister, which, of course, would no doubt be an incredible waste of time. All I can say is that there is no point in Ministers coming into this place, talking absolute bunkum and trying to hoodwink senators when the facts are clearly here and readily available for anyone to see. Really, one could hope that either the Ministry can do better with its representation in the chamber in matters such as this or it can brief itself better. Perhaps even better still, why does it not just go away and have an election so that we can have a government that knows what it is doing? Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.19) —I have asked some questions on these estimates. It appears that currently Ministers are playing musical chairs. In the process, a sensible question that I asked-- Senator Walsh —Put them on notice. Senator VIGOR —Well, it seems to me to be a question on which at least some comment could be made by a Minister who is supposed to be watching for rorts in the system which he spends a lot of time accusing people on the Opposition side of having initiated. We spend a lot of time bringing to the notice of the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, rorts such as those which appear to have taken place with respect to the first home owners scheme. I believe that I asked a pretty straightforward question-that is, what is the Government in fact doing to examine ways of cutting down on cheating in the first home owners scheme area. I asked a single question in respect of the Department of Housing and Construction. I believe it is extremely reasonable to expect that, if this debate is to be taken seriously by the Minister or by anybody else, which it should be because we are dealing with the appropriations for the running of the Public Service of this country, such simple questions relating to the operation of the Public Service and how it is handling certain problems should in fact be answered. I ask the Minister whether he can do something. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.20) —Senator Vigor referred to cheating and apparently asked a lot of questions which I did not hear. As far as I am concerned, those questions will be taken on notice. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism Proposed expenditure, $92,032,000. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(12.21) —First of all, I would like to refer to a matter concerning the Australian Government Publishing Service. I am very glad that Senator Walsh is in the chamber because I think he would be as concerned as I am if his attention were drawn to the excessive time which is being taken to settle accounts due to the Australian Government Printer. This Government is obviously looking for money. It likes playing musical chairs with money, moving it from one pocket to another, as has happened with respect to the fringe benefits tax. It could play another game with this one. The worst offenders are the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Defence, the Department of the Senate, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I think the attention of the Committee should be drawn to the Auditor-General's report, which makes reference to the debtors of the Australian Government Publishing Service. The report says that there is concern that some statutory authorities and departments are taking excessive time to settle accounts rendered by the Government Printer. It suggests that persistently tardy payers be required to make advance payments. I think it is a pretty sad state of affairs when Her Majesty's Government and its departments are being asked by the Auditor-General to make advance payments before they can get service from the Government Printer. I must say that this would not do too much for their credit rating if they were in private enterprise. I draw the Committee's attention to the indebtedness of those departments. As at 30 June 1986 the Attorney-General's Department owed the Government Printer $247,418. The Department had a current account of $147,000. In addition to that, it had an account of $81,000 for 30 to 60 days, and owed nearly $10,500 for 60 to 90 days and $8,500 for over 90 days. The Department of Defence owed $226,000 at 30 June. A large part of that, to give the Department its due, was on current account. But it owed $11,100 for 60 to 90 days and $4,861 for 90 days. The Department of Education had an account of $6,202 outstanding for over 90 days. The Department of the Senate owed the Australian Government Printer $26,348 over 90 days. The Bureau of Statistics also owed $41,500 for over 90 days. It is a pity that Senator Gietzelt has just left the chamber, because had he been here I could have reminded him to pay his bills. His Department, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, owed the Government Printer $10,500 for over 90 days. As I said before, I am glad Senator Walsh is in the chamber because he might be able to round up the troops. That was the position at 30 June. I do not know whether the situation is now better or worse. I draw attention to the fact that the Auditor-General is concerned about the matter. I am concerned about the matter. Some system had better be introduced whereby those people do pay their accounts or, as the Auditor-General suggests, they pay in advance. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.25) —I want to raise a couple of matters which relate, firstly, to the administration of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, and in particular to the question of the relative position of sports bureaucracy and the actual funding for sport. During the Estimates Committee hearing some questions were raised about the extent to which funding for sport was simply going into paying bureaucratic salaries as distinct from going through to benefit sports men and women. The Department, of course, was fairly vigorous in saying: `Oh no, heavens above, never let it be said that there are large amounts of money going to paying bureaucratic salaries rather than actually doing something about assisting sports men and women and sports facilities throughout Australia. Never let it be said that there is excessive bureaucracy in sport'. However, that fairly feeble attempt to mislead the Estimates Committee was very largely blown out of the water by the report of the Australian Sports Commission, which came to hand after the Estimates Committee had concluded its deliberations. The Australian Sports Commission's publication titled `Strategic Plan 1986-87 to 1988-89', under the heading `Key Challenges', states: The Commission believes that three major issues and concerns within Australian sport today require particular attention. They are: (i) The level of bureaucracy in sport: throughout sport in Australia, and particularly within the three levels of government, the bureaucracy of sport has grown significantly in recent years. That growth has occurred during a period in which Australian sporting performance, with some exceptions, has been disappointing and declining. The more we have spent on bureaucratic structure the less able, it appears, we have been in producing world class athletes and teams. If ever there were a damning indictment of the way in which bureaucracy in the last couple of years, and particularly under the administration of the current Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), has grown out of all manageable proportions, it is there nailed by the Sports Commission for everybody to see. More and more money is going on the bureaucracy, more and more on bureaucratic salaries, more and more on commissions, meetings, trips and conferences, and less and less at the end of the day is actually being done to improve the conditions for sports men and women and sports facilities throughout Australia. The second point I want to raise is to ask where we are with the question of the police investigation of matters dealing with the Australian Institute of Sport and, in particular, the so-called boat contract, which has been the subject of police inquiries. There have been police raids on the homes of individuals. There has been searching for documents and there has been the seizure of documents. The Committee was told that this was going to be cleared up within a matter of days, that a police report was going to be handed in, and that everything would be found to be perfectly acceptable. We have heard nothing. No statement has yet been made. I am therefore asking what now is the state of play as far as the police inquiry into that aspect of the administration of the Australian Institute of Sport is concerned. The third matter I wish to raise is the question of the Anzac Rifle Range. Here we have a quite interesting and, indeed, quite extraordinary saga of developments, not the least of which is the public attempt of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism to overturn his own Government's decision. At the time of the Budget the Government announced that it intended to sell off the Anzac Rifle Range. This is an area of about 140 hectares in the southern metropolitan part of Sydney. I was interested to see, in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette at 21 October, that the Australian Heritage Commission has moved to list on the register of the National Estate the 80 hectares located on the eastern and western sides of Anzac Rifle Range. So it is not just a matter of some worthless scrub area, it is an area of some significance. This area is used by a large number of recreational shooters. In fact one would gather that somewhere between 45,000 and 60,000 people each year make use of the range for recreational shooting. It is used for significant competitions, such as the Queen's Medal shoot. It is used for the training of military personnel, the State police, the Australian Federal Police, bank officers and prison warders. They all make use of the facilities as well as the recreational shooters. It was planned that in April 1988 the Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships would be held on the range. It was expected that that would attract more than 1,000 competitors from 16 nations and in fact invitations had been sent out and accepted by most of those 16 nations. It was felt that it would generate some $4m to $5m in tourist industry income without any outlay on the part of either the Commonwealth Government or the New South Wales Government. The sporting shooters in Sydney do not have access to alternative ranges. In 1966 the range at Liverpool was closed and, apart from a very small area at Hornsby, there is nowhere else in the Sydney metropolitan area where recreational shooters are able to take part in their preferred sporting activity. The New South Wales Rifle Association has been making representations to me and to other New South Wales senators and members and there have been a large number of petitions presented in the Parliament. Interestingly, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, Mr Uren, keeps writing back to me about my representations, saying: `I am sorry, but the Government has made a decision. It will be sold and nothing can be done about it'. The Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, wrote back to me in the same sorts of terms, saying that the Government had made a decision within the context of the Budget, nothing further can be done about the whole thing, and that that is just bad luck as far as the shooters are concerned. At the same time the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has been writing to bodies such as the New South Wales Rifle Association. I quote from the Minister's letter to the Chairman of the Association: Accordingly, I have written to my colleagues the Minister for Defence, Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services and the Prime Minister seeking their support to reverse the decision to sell the Anzac Rifle Range. A copy of the relevant correspondence is enclosed. Mr Brown has been writing to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) saying: `Please reverse this Budget decision'. In one of the paragraphs of a letter addressed to the Prime Minister the Minister said: Accordingly, I seek your sympathetic support to reverse the decision to sell the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar, New South Wales. It seems to me quite extraordinary for a Cabinet to take a decision and for the responsible Ministers in the Cabinet to be writing to honourable senators and saying: `We do not intend to re-open this matter. The decision has been made'. A Press statement was put out by Mr Uren indicating that the Government had decided to sell the property, and that it was an important part of the Government's rationalisation of its land holdings and indeed was a revenue raising measure. At the same time, the moment the heat was turned on to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism by sporting organisations, the Minister promptly wrote to the organisation saying: `Of course I am on your side. It is not my fault. It is Cabinet's fault. I am very much on your side, and therefore I have written to the Prime Minister asking him to reverse the decision. I have written to Mr Uren and Mr Beazley and I am sending you copies of that correspondence so you can see what a good chap I am'. I ask Senator Walsh, who is the Minister on duty, whether the Government has reconsidered the sale of the Anzac Rifle Range, and if it has whether it proposes to pursue the sale of the range, or whether the original Cabinet decision that the range should be sold will be allowed to stand. It is my firm view-and I know it is the view of many other New South Wales senators-that this range should not be sold and that it should continue to be available for recreational shooters and defence purposes. Senator Sir John Carrick raised this matter during the Estimates Committee debate for the Department of Defence. Senator Michael Baume, who is in the chamber at the moment, also has been making representations on the matter. One would hope, therefore, that the Government will understand that it is likely to get very little if it sells this facility, particularly now that the Heritage Commission has listed adjacent areas as areas which it intends to put on the register of the National Estate. The sale of this land will do nothing other than inconvenience a large number of recreational shooters in New South Wales who are entitled to have access to that facility and who do not have an alternative facility available. It would be prejudicial to the interests of the defence forces. I think Senator Sir John Carrick would support me in saying that it was quite clear from the estimates of the Department of Defence that the Department itself was not particularly pleased about the decision being taken and that it is being disadvantaged. The police forces, the security forces, bank officers and various other people who make use of this facility for important purposes will also be disadvantaged. Undoubtedly, problems will arise from the fact that the sandstone outcrops there are important and are being used for the restoration work being done on the historic GPO building in Martin Place, Sydney. Undoubtedly, the Government will find it very difficult to get rid of this facility, not the least reason being the unexpended ammunition around the place with which I am sure, no developer will be favourably impressed. Nor will he be impressed with the amount of rubbish that is around the place, particularly that which has been bulldozed over the years into the various creeks and valleys surrounding this area. The Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships set for 1988 will also have to be cancelled if this Government decision is pursued. Therefore, I am very strongly of the opinion that this decision should not be allowed to stand. I will be interested to know from the Minister whether the representations made to the Government by Opposition senators and members, who have been belatedly joined by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), will be treated favourably by the Government, or whether the legitimate concerns of these sportsmen and women in New South Wales are to be ignored. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.38) —Senator Newman raised the question of a substantial amount of money owed to the Government Printing Office by various departments. I cannot speak, of course, for any other department-I cannot even speak for the Department of the Senate-but, as Senator Newman mentioned the Department of the Senate and as I am a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing I feel that it is necessary to say that there is another side to the story. Suffice it to say that at least part of the amount relating to the Department of the Senate relates to queries made by the Department of the Senate on what turned out to be overcharging by the Printing Office. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(12.39) —I too raise the question of the sale of the Anzac Rifle Range because it is a range that is not used exclusively by people in New South Wales. Shooting clubs from the Australian Capital Territory, which have some very fine members, participate in activities at that range. They also have brought this matter to my attention. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships which are to be held from 9 April to 24 April in 1988 are an event that sports men and women from all over Australia who are interested in shooting would be interested in participating in in that year. Senator Puplick —They are world champion shooters. Senator REID —Yes. These games are now under threat. They have been widely advertised and accepted and sponsored by the Australian Authority. I think that that arrangement was made in May 1985. The opportunity was then given for the games to proceed. Senator Puplick has mentioned the people who use the range. About 67,000 shooters use the range, covering many clubs, police associations and other groups which have been mentioned. There is no other place for them to go. As one of the brochures I received asked: `Why Anzac?' The answer is that there is nowhere else. I raised this matter when the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services came before Estimates Committee F. It confirmed that the sale was to go ahead. I wonder whether the Minister on duty can answer some of the questions which are relevant about the site. There is waste on the site, including asbestos covering both rifle ranges at present to a depth of six metres. Given the problems that we have had in Canberra with the insistence that all asbestos be removed, I ask whether the asbestos on these sites is to be removed before the sale proceeds, or whether some poor innocent will be expected to pay the $16m, or whatever the Government expects to get for the site, and then find that he has to remove the asbestos which is in the land fill area at present. No compaction procedure has been used in placing the fill in this area. Has that been widely advertised to those who may wish to buy this land? Are they going to fall in head first to find that they are buying this land which has rubbish on it including asbestos? It is quite suitable for the purpose for which it is now being used, but I suggest that it is not suitable for many other construction purposes for which the Government may feel it is able to sell quietly this land and get the money it wants for it. No explanation has been given as to why this rifle range will be sold and taken away from those who use it-none whatever as far as I am aware, apart from the Government's desperate need to get as much money as possible from whatever source it can to try to survive and to go on spending at the rate it has been spending. There are a number of other aspects about the site which I think need to be addressed. I want to know whether the Government has properly advertised what type of land it is and whether those who are likely to be purchasing the land know what they are buying. If the Government feels that it must persist with the sale will it postpone anything being done at least until after 1988, so that this very prestigious event can take place? I think the lobbying to have the sale stopped will go beyond that, but at the very least I want an assurance that there will be no interference with the Anzac Rifle Range until after the end of the event in April 1988. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championship Committee has written to me and to a number of other people, including government members, noting their concern about the future of the sport. It is perhaps worth looking at some of the significant achievements of rifle shooters in Australia at international events. The number of medals that have been won in recent inter- national competitions is quite impressive. At the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane in 1982, seven gold medals were won. At the 1986 Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh, four gold medals were won. Australians won a gold medal for the world record score for a team event at the world target shooting championships in East Germany. Shooters enjoy the sport. Having shooting clubs is a means, of course, of seeing that young people who are interested in guns can become members of clubs and can learn how to look after rifles, pistols and other firearms and to fire them in a place which is supervised and safe so they do not go around the country shooting at road signs and animals. That is an important reason why this site should not be sold. It is also an important reason why clubs exist in the Australian Capital Territory. For the rifle shooting community, the Anzac Rifle Range has a particularly important place because of its size. I can see no reason for it being removed. It seems to me, though, that this sport is being picked on in a way that other sports are not. Other sports seem to be doing particularly well with their funding-I do not begrudge them that. But I cannot see why the Government, on the one hand, hands out money like Father Christmas to many sports, yet seeks to destroy the one range where these prestigious events can take place. Consideration interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.00 p.m. Senator CHANEY —I remind the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that yesterday, on behalf of the Opposition, I expressed concern about the Government's treatment of the Director of the Australian War Memorial, Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, and the need to resolve the present difficulties in a way that does not leave a cloud over the Memorial. Has the Minister noted today's strong criticism of his actions by a former Labor Premier of South Australia and former member of the War Memorial Council, Mr Des Corcoran? In particular, I refer to Mr Corcoran's charge that the Minister `has been constantly interfering in the Council for a long period of time and I guess that's had its effect and they've overlooked that the Director is entitled to a fair go and natural justice'. Does the Minister agree that he cannot dismiss Mr Corcoran's comments in the same contemptuous way as he has responded to the concerns of others who, like the former Premier, want to see this matter resolved in a fair and just way? Does the Minister agree that Mr Corcoran's suggestion that the Director is entitled to a fair go and natural justice is in accord with the options the Opposition has offered the Minister as a way to settle this matter? I ask the Minister: Has the Government yet decided on a course of action? If so, what does it propose to do? Senator GIETZELT —I recall Senator Chaney's level-headed and generous statement yesterday with respect to the position the Opposition may take if the Government decides to proceed with legislation. I recall making the offer to the Opposition that if it can provide me with any evidence of natural justice being denied to Mr Flemming I will take it into consideration in my approaches to Cabinet. I have waited almost 23 hours for that offer to be taken up by the Opposition. It has not done so. One can only conclude from that that the Opposition is relying on rhetoric and is taking a one-sided approach to a very complex problem which I am sure its Ministers have had to live with in government in terms of statutory office holders outside the jurisdiction of the Public Service Board. My offer still stands. I wait with some degree of concern for that offer to be taken up. In respect of Mr Corcoran, the Government notes with some pleasure the Opposition's concern about a former Labor Premier. I am not so sure that it expressed in parliamentary elections such favourable comments about him and the policies he has pursued. Having said that, I have to respond to the questions that have been asked of me by Senator Chaney. There is absolutely no truth in the statements Mr Corcoran has made about my motivation. I have pointed out to the media and maybe to the Senate that in respect of Mr Corcoran I was taking advantage of the vacancy that would be created by not reappointing him to appoint a senior officer from my Department to the position because of the shambles which the administration of the Australian War Memorial was in as a result of the leadership, or lack of leadership, by Mr Flemming. Senator Chaney asked me a question concerning whether I had applied pressure to the Council. All I can say with respect to any criticism which Mr Corcoran has levelled against me is that I can understand his concern. Any person who was not appointed would be aggrieved. I accept that. He is entitled to his view, as I am entitled to mine. As far as Mr Corcoran's statement about my interference in the Council is concerned, on the last occasion I attended the Memorial for a function I recall Mr Corcoran congratulating me on the staff and financial resources I had provided for the Australian War Memorial. I think that was in May this year. He commented that the relationship between the Council and the Minister was highly valued. There is absolutely no substance in the suggestion that I have applied duress to the Council. Of course I have expressed a view, but it is an insult to the very distinguished people who make up the Australian War Memorial Council to suggest that they have succumbed to pressure by the Minister or, for that matter, any other person. It does not speak highly of their integrity or of their capacity finally to come to the conclusion they reached on Monday evening that not only did the Minister have no confidence in Mr Flemming but also that that was the view of the Council. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister's reply but ask him: In light of Mr Corcoran's suggestion that the Director should have a fair go and natural justice, will the Minister either accept the finding of the Jones Inquiry into Allegations Concerning the Administration of the Australian War Memorial that Mr Flemming is not guilty of misconduct or appoint a full inquiry which will enable the disputed issues to be determined? Senator GIETZELT —I recall that in the latter part off Senator Chaney's question he asked me about the views of the Government. The matter is currently before the Cabinet. All the options that are available to the Government are being considered by it. When the Government makes its decision it will advise the Australian War Memorial Council and the Parliament about the course of action that is open to it. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It relates to an article in the Queensland Sunday Mail on 26 October 1986. Is the Minister aware that the article quotes a Mr Raphael Ambari who was a carrier for the Australian Army in Papua New Guinea during World War II? Did Mr Ambari state that carriers were promised compensation for their services by the Australians, but that when the War finished they were forgotten? I ask the Minister: Is this a correct assessment? Senator GIETZELT —I have read the article quoting Mr Raphael Ambari who was a carrier, so the article says-I do not dispute it-for the Australian Army in Papua New Guinea during World War II. Having served for 2 1/2 years in Papua New Guinea and New Britain, I know that I can speak on behalf of every veteran who served in that area in World War II of the invaluable role that Papua New Guineans, known as `fuzzy wuzzy angels', performed for the Australian Government and the Australian armed forces. They were regarded very affectionately by all the soldiers in the conflict. My investigations show that some 49,000 Papua New Guinean nationals were conscripted as civilians during World War II to perform the very valuable function of assisting Australian troops and, I would have thought, American troops at certain stages in the war. I doubt whether the Australian Army could have held on to New Guinea if we had not had the support of the people of that country in performing tasks such as carrying supplies through the jungles and over the mountains and many other menial tasks. I have been a Minister during 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. In each of those four years I have been visited by successive Ministers of Defence in the Papua New Guinea Government. They have all raised with me the question of the provision of some form of compensation by the Australian Government to those civilians. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have been somewhat sympathetic to that view but the Papua New Guinea Government has taken the view that, as it is now a sovereign nation, looking after its nationals is a matter for that Government. It is true that the matter was raised again with me just recently by Mr Tago, the current Minister. It would appear that the present Government has a different view from that expressed previously by Mr Somare. I pointed out that it was essential that this matter of compensation by the Australian Government be dealt with at a government to government level. Until the Government in New Guinea makes approaches it is not possible for me to say other than that I certainly recognise some legitimacy in the view of the people there because they were paid literally conscript wages. They suffered very greatly in the war through the lack of facilities available to Australian and American troops. But as New Guinea is a sovereign nation the matter has to be handled at a government to government level. Senator DURACK —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to the views expressed by a respected analyst, Dr Ian Story, in the last Weekend Australian. He is reported to have said: In the last six months it was estimated that US investors put about $US1 billion into Australian gold companies. Additional large amounts of investments are being withheld pending clarification of the question of gold taxation. Is the Minister concerned about this loss of new investment in an industry which is one of the few bright spots in the resources sector? Why is the Government unable or unwilling to make a decision on this matter? Has the Minister taken any steps to hasten the making of this long-overdue decision? If not, why not? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have expressed the view publicly a number of times over the year that it is in the interests of the industry that a decision be made sooner rather than later on this issue because of the necessity to clarify ground rules for future investors. I do not believe that the course that the process has taken so far has in any way been an adverse factor in the developments that have taken place to date. Over the last 12 months or so the price of gold unquestionably has been a sufficient engine to get going any conceivable investment that might have been contemplated. The Government has this matter under close attention at the moment. It is certainly expected that a decision will be made and announced before the end of the year. Senator TATE —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs will recall frequent references by the Opposition to the proclamation ceremony for the Veterans' Entitlements Act, which Act provides for the well-being of veterans and their dependants. In view of the Opposition's interest in such matters, can the Minister advise whether any functions quite unconnected with the Memorial's operations or the well-being of veterans have been held at the Memorial during the term of the current Director? In particular, can the Minister advise whether a civil wedding ceremony was held in the Hall of Remembrance which, as honourable senators are aware, is the most sacred and deeply symbolic heart of the Memorial? Would the families of Australia's war dead be entitled to regard such a function as an insult to the memory of their loved ones? If there were such a function, can the Minister say who was present at the wedding and who authorised it? Senator GIETZELT —Mr President, may I ask a question? Did I hear Senator Tate say that a civil wedding was held at the Australian War Memorial? The PRESIDENT —Order! Does Senator Tate wish to readdress his question? Senator GIETZELT —May I have that portion repeated? Senator TATE —The question is in my handwriting. I do not know whether I can read it again. That portion stated: . . . can the Minister advise whether a civil wedding ceremony was held in the Hall of Remembrance which, as honourable senators are aware, is the most sacred and deeply symbolic heart of the Memorial? Would the families of Australia's war dead be entitled to regard such a function as an insult to the memory of their loved ones? Senator GIETZELT —I did hear correctly the first time. I am absolutely astounded and shocked at any suggestion that a civil wedding has been held at the Australian War Memorial. If it was held in the Hall of Remembrance it has defiled the very sacredness of that portion of the Australian War Memorial. It would be grossly sacrilegious to hold any civil ceremony of that nature in an area which is regarded, perhaps more than any other part of the Australian War Memorial, as being very sacred. If the assertions are true, I certainly give Senator Tate an assurance that I will immediately seek an explanation from staff of the Australian War Memorial about the issues that he has raised because, as the Senate will be aware, the Government has been criticised by the Opposition for holding a ceremony for the proclamation of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Therefore, to suggest that there has been a civil wedding ceremony at the War Memorial defies imagination. I am absolutely appalled at that suggestion. I will seek an urgent response and reply to the honourable senator. Senator MASON —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Is it a fact that the western Sydney area, with a population considerably larger than that of Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory combined, does not have a single university? Assuming that the Minister favours the continuance of existing universities in Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, will she announce without equivocation the Government's commitment to the early construction of a university in western Sydney? Finally, is the Minister aware of proposals by the Mayor of Penrith for such a university to be built adjacent to the existing Penrith Technical and Further Education College, where there is a suitable site? If so, what is her reaction to those proposals? Senator RYAN —I am aware of the Penrith City Council's views about an appropriate siting for a university college. I am aware of a great deal of the negotiation and discussion going on among the Commonwealth Government, State authorities, institutions in the outer western area and citizens living in that area. In all modesty, I think I have a lot more awareness of these matters than does Senator Mason and than his question indicates. To start a question along the line of `is it a fact that there is no university in the western suburbs' does not show a very deep knowledge of the circumstances of the west. Of course there is no university in the western suburbs of Sydney, as everybody knows. There are two colleges of advanced education which have been supported and extended under our Government's policies. In the south-west, an area which also deserves consideration, there is a further college of advanced education, which again is growing rapidly and is strongly supported by our Government. In relation to the legitimate desires of people in the western suburbs of Sydney, and indeed the south-west, to have university places in those areas, there has been considerable progress. Current thinking by the Commonwealth is that the quickest and most economical way of getting university facilities commenced in the west would be to establish a college of an existing university, probably of Sydney University or the University of New South Wales. If this proposal were developed in co-operation with the State Government it would be possible to have university places in the west by the beginning of 1990. There are alternative ways of taking university places to the west but my view at this stage is that a university college of an established and flourishing university would be the best way to go, all things considered. The fact to which Senator Mason's question drew attention, that there is no university in the western suburbs, is not a criticism that can be sheeted home to our Government. It is a criticism of previous planning. For example, during the seven years of the Fraser Administration no steps were taken, to my knowledge, to develop the concept of having university facilities in the west. Indeed, at the time when Macquarie University, Sydney's third university, was established and sited the State Government at the time-I think it was a Liberal government although I may have to stand corrected on that-chose a most inappropriate site for that university. The result is that although Macquarie University is a flourishing university and it has many students, those students do not come from the disadvantaged western suburbs of Sydney-it is virtually impossible for them to get there-they come from the relatively advantaged northern suburbs of Sydney, where students already have fairly ready access to existing universities. So the fact that there is no university in the western suburbs should really involve criticism of decisions by Commonwealth and State governments previous to our taking office. Since we took office we have worked very actively to increase higher education opportunities in the western suburbs and have done so very successfully. It is our intention to continue to do so and to look at the best in terms of standards, meeting the needs of the community in the most cost-efficient way to develop such a facility in an appropriate part of the western suburbs. Whether this development will be at the Penrith site, which naturally the Penrith City Council is attracted to, the Blacktown site, which also has its firm adherents, or indeed a better site are matters about which I have to have more extensive discussions with the New South Wales Government and the various groups in the western suburbs. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to media reports on Friday, 14 November which indicate that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is callous in its form of communication with spouses of deceased veterans. Not only that, but in the case mentioned the letter was sent to the wife of a veteran who was still very much alive. Will the Minister ensure that this is not allowed to happen again and that his Department adopts a more sympathetic approach in its correspondence? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Foreman has raised a matter that causes me some distress. A pro forma piece of correspondence has been forwarded to a number of people from one of the State offices of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I consider that each of these letters was in an unacceptable form. Firstly, the names and sex of the alleged deceased were written in. Also, the letters which have come to my attention referred in each case to the decease of a veteran and went to his wife referring to her as his widow. I apologise to those persons who have received such a communication from the Department. I hope it was a one-off experience. It would be distressing for a woman to receive a letter from the Department suggesting that her husband has died when in fact he is still alive. I also think it is highly inappropriate to have a formal pro forma letter, despite all the nice words in it, which has details filled in in handwriting in such an impersonal sort of way. As I understand it, the problems came about as a result of a computer mistake. Computers are supposed to be more perfect than the human hand, but in these cases it would appear that that has not been so. I have issued instructions so that in future a more carefully prepared letter will be produced on a word processor and it will have regard to the circumstances in which the veteran dies. His widow will be written to expressing the deepest sympathy of the Government and the Department and taking the other administrative steps that flow from the death of a veteran. Senator SHEIL —My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and relates to the holding of the Veterans' Entitlements Act proclamation function at the Australian War Memorial. I ask the Minister whether there was any happening, memorandum or message from the Australian War Memorial to the Minister's office or the Minister which caused the senior staffer of the Minister, Ms Cynthia Martin, to issue the minute referred to in the Ken Jones report which says: He- the Minister- would like a ceremony arranged at the Australian War Memorial. Senator GIETZELT —There have been a number of suggestions from the Opposition that there was opposition to this action from the Australian War Memorial or other interested bodies. I checked that matter out some time ago with the Returned Services League and found that there were no difficulties as far as the League was concerned. Following a question asked of me yesterday I referred to my files. I have a document which establishes very clearly the view of the Director of the Australian War Memorial. I am quite happy to table it. It is a summary of the meeting with me at 5.15 p.m. on 31 July 1986 at which were present Mr Flemming, Mr Volker, Mr Hansen and Mrs Robson, the latter two from my personal staff. The meeting flowed from comments made by Mr Fischer on the day on which the function was held at the Australian War Memorial. Mr Fischer said that he had been handed certain documents by the Australian War Memorial officers-`officials' I think was the word he used-and that there was some criticism about the holding of such a function. In due course, I interviewed the officer charged with the administration of the Australian War Memorial, Mr Flemming. It is true that I did not do that until 31 July. That was largely to meet the wishes of the Chairman of the Australian War Memorial Council, who was on holiday overseas, and because I was unavailable because of my commitments as an officer of the Australian Labor Party. I inform Senator Sheil that this document was given to the Director and he accepted it as a true record of what took place at the meeting. Mrs Robson took notes and this document is a precis of what took place at the meeting. Referring to the Director, the document states: He said he felt it was entirely proper and appropriate for the ceremony to be held at the AWM. He said that Dame Beryl had attended, and that both he and the Chairman thought it had gone off very well. I table the document for the benefit of the Opposition. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs been drawn to an article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 18 November 1986 in which it is stated that speculation is mounting that Milan Brych, the cancer quack recently released from a United States gaol after serving half of a six-year gaol sentence for medical fraud relating to his discredited treatment methods, will return to Australia? Has any application been made to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs or his Department from Brych, a New Zealand citizen? If such an application has been made or is received in the future what is the likely response from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs? Senator GRIMES —I did see some media speculation that Milan Brych had applied to return to Australia-specifically to Queensland, I gather. But neither I nor the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs have any knowledge of the gentleman having made any application to come to Australia. Certainly, as a New Zealand citizen, he would normally not need a visa to enter Australia. But as someone who served a prison sentence exceeding 12 months for the offence of medical fraud that he committed in the United States, he would be deemed to be a prohibited non-citizen. Unless he had an endorsed entry permit, one that acknowledged his conviction and sentence, in order to enter Australia he would have to apply for a visa before he came to Australia. I cannot judge, nor can the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs make any judgment, as to whether such a visa would be issued. But I assure the honourable senator that considerations such as Milan Brych's background in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Australia and the United States, would be taken into account before he would be allowed to return here, no matter how much of a friend he may be of people in high places in Queensland. Senator SHORT —Did the Minister for Finance address a conference organised by the Australian Labor Party Federal Electorate Council for the seat of Sydney last weekend? If so, was the audience composed largely of academics, environmentalists, equal opportunity officers, gay activists, lesbian separatists, Public Service trade union officials, resources persons and anti-nuclear campaigners? Did the audience interject during the Minister's address, which was on economic issues, in terms such as, `what about the workers', `tool of the money markets', `privileged pollie', `pension basher', and `sexist'? What is the Minister's response to these allegations? Senator WALSH —I am sure that no reasonable person would accuse me of being any of those things. I think that the description of the audience was an accurate quotation from David Clark's report of it, written in the colourful language which David Clark sometimes uses. Quite frankly, I would not know whether there were representatives of all of those groups at the conference-it was not a conference; it was called a seminar, I think-that were characterised by Mr Clark, or whether all of those groups actually exist. But they were not wearing labels identifying themselves as lesbian separatists, resources persons, Public Service union officials, or whatever else was contained in that list. Quite frankly, I do not know. I think the honourable senator should take it up with Mr Clark. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: Is it true that the position of the Human Rights Commission representative in Hobart has recently been abolished? If it is true, can the Minister outline the reasons for that? What will the staffing arrangements for the new Commission be after 10 December? Given that there is no anti-discrimination legislation in Tasmania, and that the Gray Government is not inclined to introduce such progressive legislation, what alternative will be provided for Tasmanians to have human rights matters investigated? Can the Minister outline what measures the Commonwealth will take to ensure that Tasmanians do not suffer discrimination or abuses of their human rights because of the lack of protective State legislation? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, it is not true that the Human Rights Commission representative's position in Hobart has been abolished; nor will it be abolished, except in the technical sense that all the Public Service positions in the Human Rights Commission will be abolished when the sunset clause in the Human Rights Commission Act operates on 9 December, unless this Parliament gets its act together fast in the next few days and passes the legislation. The Government is committed to enacting the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill to replace the present Human Rights Commission. That will, of course, have similar functions to the existing body. The Government expects that the new Commission will have an office in Hobart. Arrangements are in hand for the present Human Rights Commission office to remain in situ until the new Commission has determined its staffing structure. I am not able to say at this stage exactly what staff the new Commission will allocate to its Hobart office. But so long as Senator Walters, Mr Gray and the rest of them are around, there will undoubtedly be plenty of business for it to attend to. Senator Coates rightly pointed out that there is, regrettably, no anti-discrimination legislation in operation in Tasmania. But it is the case that, by reason of our legislation in this area, Tasmanians will enjoy the protections afforded by-and they need them all-the Racial Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, together with the United Nations declarations on the rights of the child, the mentally retarded and disabled persons, and the International Labour Organisation Convention on the Prevention of Discrimination in Employment and Occupation. All of those international protections, as well as the domestic racial and sex discrimination Acts, are, of course, within the jurisdiction of the old Human Rights Commission and the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. As a result, Tasmanians will continue to enjoy their protection. Senator PUPLICK —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, relates to the Government's intervention in support of attempts by the United Kingdom Government to deny Australian citizens information about the origins of their own security services and the role played in their establishment by Sir Roger Hollis. I ask: Did Mr Codd, the Chairman of the Secretary's Committee on Intelligence and Security, make two submissions to Mr Justice Powell, first, that publication of Peter Wright's book would encourage members of similar Australian agencies to make such disclosures, and, secondly, that such disclosures could damage Australia's security because of a loss of confidence in the ability of these agencies to keep information secret? Is it not a fact that Mr Wright was not bound by the Australian Official Secrets Act, and therefore the first leg of the argument is spurious? Does it mean that the Australian Government has no confidence in the British security services because of their leaks and because of the activities of Messrs Burgess, MacLean, Philby, Blunt, Fuchs, Blake, Vassall, Prine and others? Finally, has the Minister noted the comments by His Honour Mr Justice Powell, criticising the United Kingdom Attorney-General for the feebleness of the case that has been put to him? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not propose to comment on the course of the litigation at the moment. Certainly, I would not be so vulgar as to pass on any remarks about the conduct of the case by the judge, as Senator Puplick has just done. It is inappropriate, I think, given the way in which we pay respect to judicial proceedings in this country, for diatribes of that kind to be uttered in this chamber, particularly at such a premature stage of what clearly will be prolonged proceedings. All I will say about this matter is that the question in issue concerns the proper scope and application of the Australian law of breach of confidence. Although it concerns a British plaintiff pursuing, in effect, a British defendant in relation to matters involving disclosure of what are possibly British secrets, the reality is that it is the scope and application of the Australian law that is the subject of decision and, as such, the Australian Government and its security services have a natural interest in the way in which that law is applied and the way in which it may be applied in comparable cases in the future. To the extent that Mr Codd's affidavit on behalf of the Government does traverse some of the areas that Senator Puplick has described, there is an entirely reasonable and understandable Australian public interest involved in ensuring that the scope of the law of breach of confidentiality is applied in such a way that former or current members of security agencies will not be encouraged to feel free to disclose the secrets they acquire in the course of such employment. I find it quite extraordinary that Senator Puplick, as a representative of a party which shrouds itself in the flag and beats its collective chest on security matters, should be so profoundly insensitive and indifferent to what are manifestly national security concerns. It seems to me to be yet another example of flexible principle and of cynical opportunism, of the kind we have seen so often from the Party opposite, which loves to proclaim itself as a supporter of principle in the abstract, but which, when it is confronted with any practical application of it and any particular hard choice that governments must face in practice, runs for cover and advances cheap popular slogans of the kind that Senator Puplick has just put before us. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister identify the Australian security interests that are being protected by the Australian Government's intervention in this case, as distinct from British security interests? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Puplick clearly has not listened to what I have just said. Australia has a public interest, a security interest, in ensuring that the law of breach of confidence is not applied in Australia in such a way as to give aid, comfort or nourishment to servants or former servants of security agencies who might be tempted to launch into print and disclose things they may have learnt or experienced or which they have said they have learnt or experienced in the course of their employment. If Senator Puplick cannot understand that as being a public interest and a security interest that is deserving of at least the limited kind of intervention in support of it that the Australian Government has offered, he should not be a senator in this place. Senator McKIERNAN —My question, which concerns the Australian War Memorial, is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It has been observed that the kiosk at the Australian War Memorial bears the Memorial's logo and that Press advertisements for the kiosk also use that logo. I ask the Minister: Is the kiosk operated as a private business by a person unconnected with the Memorial? If so, is the kiosk entitled to use the logo? Finally, who authorised the use of the logo in this manner? Senator GIETZELT —There is a logo that is used by the Australian War Memorial and, of course, it is a symbolic logo that commemorates the sacrifice of all Australia's war dead. I would regard it with the same reverence with which governments, past and present, have regarded the use of the word `Anzac'. As I have said before, it is in the hands of the Minister of the day to make sure that that word does not get used for any commercial purposes. I would imagine that that ought to be the approach in respect of the logo that is associated with the Australian War Memorial. I would regard it as manifestly improper and highly irregular if any private organisation or individual, particularly a profit making enterprise, were using that logo for any commercial purpose. Under no circumstances would any government or the veterans community agree to the use of that logo for any financial benefit. However, if it is being used for the purposes that have been suggested, I certainly will again examine that and report back to the Parliament as soon as possible. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to the October statement of Commonwealth Government financial transactions and I ask: Will the Minister explain the alarming disparity between government outlays for the four months ended 31 October 1986 and the Budget, and in particular the non-seasonal cumulative outlay for public debt interest, which is actually 25 per cent higher than for the corresponding period last year, compared with a Budget estimated increase of only 6.5 per cent? Does this imply that public debt interest may be as much as $2 billion above Budget estimates for the full financial year? If so, does he agree that the actual figures indicate that the Government cannot realistically expect to achieve its forecast Budget deficit, or achieve its trilogy commitments on government expenditures? Will the Government undertake an immediate review of its economic and financial policies and in particular its high debt, its high interest rate strategy and its spending commitments, in the light of this most alarming potential blowout of the deficit? Senator WALSH —I am grateful to Senator Messner for asking me this question because it gives me an opportunity to refresh his memory about deficits, public expenditure, blowouts and rubbery figures, for which the previous coalition Government was notorious-- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. The Minister has indicated quite clearly what his intentions are in dealing with this quite specific question. Mr President, I ask you to remind him of the standing order which precludes him from debating the question and to direct him to answer the question. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order at this stage; but I know that the Minister now knows standing order 100 off by heart, because he has been reminded of it so frequently. Senator WALSH —It is customary, even in Budgets which do not have rubbery figures built into them, as so many Howard Budgets did, for there to turn out to be a number of individual items with both overestimates and underestimates on both the outlays and expenditure sides. It is not unusual for those variations to be largely cancelling; that is, that the final or bottom line of aggregate outlays, deficits and so on might come in very close to estimate at Budget time, as has happened with two of the three Budgets this Government has introduced, even though there may have been very substantial variations on the individual items which constituted the total outlays and the total revenue. Senator Messner, however, asked whether it was conceivable that public debt interest was likely to be $2 billion above the Budget estimate. That is not conceivable. He is correct, if I remember correctly, that both the most recent CFT statement and the one before that have drawn attention to the fact that public debt interest payments have been running at a significantly higher level than they were in the same periods in the year before, and reasons were given for that. Senator Messner —And above the Budget. Senator WALSH —Senator Messner was once vaguely associated with this, during the days of the discredited Fraser-Howard Government, and I thought that he would know from that experience, if he learnt anything from it, that things like age pensions tend to be fairly constant in terms of the expenditure in each month being a fairly constant proportion of the expenditure throughout the year, but a number of items are affected by one-offs, timing variations and things like that. That applies even to social security. I should add this caveat: Sometimes there are three social security paydays in the one calendar month, which obviously has an enormous influence on the outlays under that item. I would have thought that Senator Messner, from his own experience, would know that what happens in a particular month, or in a particular four months compared with the same four months in the previous year, may or may not reflect underlying changes in outlays in that item. I am also aware-this, of course, is the real reason for Senator Messner asking me this question-that the discredited former Treasurer has been running around the country saying that the starting line for next year's Budget is a deficit of $7 billion to $8 billion. I think he put it as high as $9 billion at one stage. Rather than thinking of the 1986 Budget, he seems to be thinking of the 1982 Budget, when the prospective deficit was $9.6 billion. That is the legacy he left us with-a prospective deficit of $9.6 billion. Of course, we are not into that sort of thing. The Leader of the Opposition-Senator Messner is evidently collaborating on this-and the Liberal Party of Australia are annoyed by the fact that the dollar has stabilised and they are into economic sabotage in Opposition, just as they were into economic sabotage in their last pitiful weeks in government. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Obviously, the Minister is avoiding the question, because I drew specific attention-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will ask his supplementary question. Senator MESSNER —I drew specific attention in the question to the point that these are non-seasonal fluctuations in the public debt interest amount and consequently would represent a constant proportion of the total Budget over the 12-month period and that indicates a $2 billion deficit-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is not allowed to make a speech. I ask him to ask his supplementary question. Senator MESSNER —My question is: Is the Minister covering up a development in the financial accounts which he will not come clean on? Senator WALSH —Again the Opposition seems to be confusing the 1982 Budget with the 1986 Budget, in particular in regard to Senator Messner's reference to coming clean. In the week before the 1983 election the then Secretary to the Treasury sent two entreaties to the then Treasurer to come clean about the size of the prospective deficit. Of course Mr Howard said: `No, we are not going to come clean. We have got to keep that locked up because we do not want the public to know what it is'. When the Liberal and National parties lost the election the public did find out and this Government, both to protect itself and in the public interest, was obliged to publish the fact that the prospective deficit was $9.6 billion. Senator Michael Baume —No, it wasn't. It was $6.9 billion. The figures prove it. Senator WALSH —It was $9.6 billion, Patrick. You are not Patrick Partners' accountant still. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to ignore the interjections and respond directly to the supplementary question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I do not see why I should have to bring the public debt interest payments figures into the Senate for Senator Messner because they are in the Commonwealth financial transactions statement, they are on the public record. If I recall correctly, in the previous CFT statement-- Senator Knowles —You just don't know. You would not know what time of day it is. The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Knowles! Senator WALSH —I thought that was Senator Short; was it Senator Knowles? In the previous CFT statement I believe there was a specific reference to changes of a seasonal nature and the timing of payments on loan interest. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Communications been drawn to an article in the Australian yesterday headlined `Italian backing for SBS merger' which quoted a report in Il Globo? Does the Australian article accurately reflect evidence contained in the Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service, the Connor report? Will the amalgamation of the SBS with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation mean a more cost-effective and/or earlier extension of multicultural television via the ABC to currently unserviced centres such as Port Pirie, Whyalla and Port Augusta in the Iron Triangle area of South Australia? Senator WALSH —I have not read the original report in Il Globo which was reported yesterday in the Australian. Indeed I would have a great deal of difficulty trying to read it. However, I understand that the Australian newspaper's summary of the Il Globo report was quite accurate and that likewise the Il Globo article or editorial as reprinted in the Australian accurately reflects the evidence contained in the Connor report. No doubt it has been a great disappointment to that weak opportunist who currently leads the Liberal Party that the organ of the largest ethnic group in the country, that is excluding Anglo-Celtic ethnics, has come out in support of the very sensible decision that the Government made on both broadcasting and budgetary grounds thereby demonstrating not only that the present Leader of the Opposition is a weak opportunist but that he is a pretty crook political judge as well. Senator MACKLIN —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the fact that the Liberal Party is producing a video on nuclear issues featuring Ian `Molly' Meldrum interviewing the honour- able member for Kooyong, Andrew Peacock. The video will be distributed to South Australian schools with the Liberal pamphlet entitled `Living in a Nuclear World' which assures our young people that nuclear weapons are the only protection we have against a nuclear war. In the interests of presenting a range of views on the nuclear issue, will the Minister commission a booklet describing the different approaches to nuclear disarmament of the Government, conservative parties and groups, the Australian Democrats and the peace movement for distribution in schools in Australia? Senator Teague —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The basis of the question is false. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —As I said in the Senate on 16 October in reply to a question from Senator Haines, I have seen the pamphlet to which Senator Macklin referred. As I indicated then, the Government regards it as something of a curate's egg in both the character of its information and the views it conveys. I was not aware that it was being distributed to South Australian schools along with the video mentioned by Senator Macklin. It beggars the imagination a little to contemplate a video with those two in it, each competing to hog the limelight, no doubt in a grotesque fashion. The question of the propriety of the distribution of the video is one essentially for the South Australian education authorities to examine. However, I would assume that the education authorities in South Australia would make it clear that such material reflects solely the views of one political party in that it is balanced by ensuring that schools in that State are aware of the availability of information material which reflects the Government's views on these matters. Among other things, its view would be that the nuclear deterrence is justified only as a means of holding the line, as it were, until disarmament is achieved rather than being something good or desirable in itself, which seems the implication that flowed through the pamphlet in question and no doubt the video. The Government already produces a whole variety of information material on the field of peace, disarmament and arms control questions. This material is freely available to community groups, including schools, on request. Many non-government organisations also disseminate their views. We would certainly expect that any responsible school or teacher would seek information on this vital issue from a variety of sources. I am not at all sure whether there is a need for the Federal Government to produce and to distribute any compendium of views such as Senator Macklin proposes or whether the expense of doing so could be justified. No doubt the Minister will bear in mind the honourable senator's suggestion. Senator ELSTOB —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to the transcript of an interview by Mark Day of Opposition Leader John Howard on Melbourne radio station 3AK on 13 November? I refer to Mr Howard's remarks to the effect that people must be given encouragement and incentives to invest. Are Mr Howard's statements correct and are government tax reform measures, such as the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax, discouraging investment? Senator WALSH —The answer to the last part of the question is dependent upon how one defines the word `investment', which is highly relevant to the transcript of interview in question. Senator Elstob in his question referred to `productive investment', and that is a critical distinction. It is investment in the sense that economists normally use it; that is, the expenditure of money on equipment, upgrading land or construction activity which will produce ongoing new additional income. It is quite different from the more commonly understood concept of investment, which is just putting money in the bank or buying some non-reproducible asset such as shares in a company. That is an extremely important distinction because nothing is produced. Expenditure on shares of the type which just changes the ownership of shares is not productive investment in the real sense. For example, recently we have seen a lot of company takeovers per se, one of which was written about by Terry McCrann in the Age of 15 April this year; that is, the Elders takeover of Henry Jones to form the merged company Elders IXL Ltd. Mr McCrann wrote-I stress `Mr McCrann wrote'-and published six months ago these words: Shortly before Elder Smith unveiled its bid for Henry Jones, the leading executives in Henry Jones outlaid $19,000 in taking up 1c paid shares under an executive incentive scheme. The Elder Smith offer delivered a clear-tax-free-profit of $4.16 million to those executives. Mr Elliott himself cleared $657,000 on a $3,000 outlay. No productive investment at all took place from that transaction. Nothing was produced except personal gain for Mr Elliott and a number of other executives. It is true, of course, that the capital gains tax is likely to act as some sort of deterrent to that sort of non-productive investment; but to productive investment, it will not act as a deterrent at all. Indeed, all the criticisms that have been levelled, principally by the Opposition but also by some other fringe groups, particularly the far Right or New Right, do absolutely nothing to address the country's fundamental economic problem, and that is the size of our current account deficit. None of the undertakings for change which the Opposition gives really address that question. What bringing back the tax deductible Mercedes, the boozy free lunch, paying pensions to millionaires or allowing tax free capital gains for paper entrepreneurs who set up chains of share ownership deals will do to solve this problem remains a great mystery. Senator BUTTON —At Question Time on 17 November Senator Archer asked me a question about the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office and in particular the fact that the information technology division of the Office had been cut back or abolished. Senator Puplick also made some comments in relation to this matter, which I overheard as I was walking past, in the course of a debate in the Senate. The Australian Patent Office established a technology information branch in March 1984 and has had some success in demonstrating a number of ways in which patent information can be used more effectively. In a recent report of the Industrial Property Advisory Committee entitled `Patent Information for Smaller Australian Enterprises' it was suggested that patent information would be more useful to Australian industry, particularly to smaller enterprises, if it were packaged with other information such as legal, commercial and financial information and available from central points such as multiplier agencies or government operated development centres. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) believed this suggestion to be sensible. In view of the necessity of reducing Commonwealth expenditure, the Government decided that the technology information function of the Australian Patent Office would cease. In other words, it was essentially a small exercise in privatisation, of which I understand the Liberal Party once used very much to approve. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —by leave-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 provide for the payment of bounty on the production of certain books. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator TEAGUE —I have been misrepresented indirectly in statements made by Senator Macklin during Question Time today. I am sure that this was innocent and inadvertent on his part. The matters concerned disarmament and arms control, and it is well known in the Senate that I have taken a very active role in these matters. Two particular matters were false in the question Senator Macklin asked in the Senate today. The first was that a video on disarm- ament and arms control was being produced by the Liberal Party of Australia. This is wrong. A video has been produced by me in which I seek to present a mainstream Australian and non-party political approach to these questions. I note, as the Senate well knows, that I perform a parliamentary role as deputy chairman of the disarmament and arms control sub-committee of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Next Tuesday we will be presenting to the Parliament a 22-chapter 1,000-page report on our three-year inquiry into disarmament and arms control. It is important that that kind of report not be left on the dusty shelves of Parliament House but should actually be available in a form that is more popularly accessible to the public of Australia. In producing this video I have tried to take into account fully the work we put into that report. Secondly and more briefly, I am a co- convener, and have been since its foundation, of the parliamentary disarmament group. In particular, on 26 September I was the co-ordinator in Parliament House of the Australian Parliamentary Disarmament Forum. It is well known in the Senate that the forum involved members of the Parliament from all parties and five ambassadors of the nuclear-armed nations were our guests. I tried to take the results of that forum fully into account in producing this video. I reiterate that there is no reference to the Liberal Party, the Australian Labor Party, the National Party of Australia or to the Australian Democrats in the film I have produced. It is false for Senator Macklin to say-I repeat that I believe this to be inadvertent on his part-that the video will be distributed along with any Liberal Party published material such as a pamphlet that has been distributed in Victoria called `Living in a Nuclear World'. It would be totally counter-productive for me, when I am trying to pursue a mainstream and non-party political approach, to have the video associated with any material published by a particular party. I conclude by saying that I have invited the principals of all secondary schools in my State of South Australia, together with the representative of the Director-General of the Department of Education in South Australia and every member of the Peace Studies Advisory Council in my State, to attend a previewing of this new video so that its availability to schools can be clearly understood. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is now going beyond the bounds of a personal explanation. Senator TEAGUE —Thank you, Mr President. I will conclude with these few words: I am proud of this video and I believe it will be seen to fit the words I have used. I say finally that it is being made available to the Australian public and to schools. Far be it from me or anybody else to thrust curriculum material on them. That is, of course, the responsible choice of education authorities. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 19 November, from Senator Chaney: Dear Mr President Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to abolish the Fringe Benefits Tax because of the extra cost burden it imposes on business, industry and the rural community, its unfair impact on relatively low income earners such as bank officers and the effect it will have on voluntary, charitable, religious and educational organisations and institutions.'. Yours sincerely Fred Chaney Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.10) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to abolish the Fringe Benefits Tax because of the extra cost burden it imposes on business, industry and the rural community, its unfair impact on relatively low income earners such as bank officers and the effect it will have on voluntary, charitable, religious and educational organisations and institutions. This is the fifth occasion on which the Opposition has brought forward a motion calling for the abolition or the amendment of the fringe benefits tax. We have been able to carry only one of those motions, a motion calling for some amendment, because on all other occasions the Australian Democrats have again joined with the Government in affirming their support for the fringe benefits tax. The disquiet that there is in the general community about the operation of this tax is quite evident, and it could not be made more evident than by the actions of the Government itself. We are in a situation where the Government is currently not only imposing a new tax but also spending part of the proceeds of that new tax on lodging advertisements in the media of Australia to tell the people of Australia what a good thing this tax is. If ever there was a sign that a tax was unpopular and ill-received, it would be the panic measures by this Government to sell that tax by its use of public money to advertise its political objectives. Senator Watson —Shame. Senator CHANEY —Senator Watson called `shame', and I agree. I think it is a shameful thing that this Government is not only overtaxing this country, but also using part of those proceeds to try to justify its actions politically by buying paid political advertisements. In the real world of Australia, away from the artificial atmosphere of this Parliament House, there is no doubt that the people of Australia are fed up with the Government's tax policies and the imposition of new taxes upon them. The Opposition intends to continue to press these issues with the Government, because after a lot of protestation from Government senators that the tax was a step in favour of fairness and equity, we eventually had admissions by the Government that the tax was in fact unfair, and of course, we got some minor revisions of the fringe benefits tax when the Government made that concession. No Minister is speaking on behalf of the Government today. No Minister is prepared to come in here and support and defend this tax. We have the usual cheerful little group of Senator Maguire, Senator McKiernan and Senator Cooney. I can only say that Senator Maguire's constituents in South Australia must wonder why he has never acknowledged, in his contributions to the debate in this place, what impact the fringe benefits tax is having upon the car industry, which is vital to his State of South Australia. One must wonder why Senator McKiernan, who purports to represent the State of Western Australia, has expressed no concern about the impact of the fringe benefits tax on the vital Western Australian industries in the Pilbara and the eastern gold fields, industries which have been severely incommoded and disadvantaged by this new taxes which have been imposed very unfairly on those basic industries. The reality is that we will once again get from Australian Labor Party senators a pathetic attempt to try to justify and defend the indefensible. They will make none of the concessions that have been made by braver Labor senators, such as Senator Graham Richardson, who has admitted that this tax is impacting upon the less well paid in the community. Instead we will get a dreary justification of something that really cannot be justified at all. This is just one of the issues which are causing concern in the Australian community, and causing a reduction in our living standards. It is only one of the things that the Government is doing which are lessening our chances of economic recovery and ensuring that the misery of our economic situation is prolonged into next year and the year beyond that. This is the Government which has not only imposed new taxes but also imposed interest rates which mean that new home buyers are being asked to pay 17.5 per cent on their home mortgages. What simpler measure could we get of the misery which is being imposed on the people of Australia, including the suburban people of the city of Adelaide, whom Senator Maguire purports to represent, by the economic and taxation policies of this Government? We have a government which is imposing record levels of taxes, and Senator Maguire is in here defending a government which is imposing 17.5 per cent interest rates on his constituents. I wonder why they elected him to this place. I am sure they are wondering why they elected him. I return to the direct and damaging impost of the fringe benefits tax. In each case in the debate the Opposition has been accused of defending rorts. What is put forward is that this whole question of fringe benefits tax relates only to high income earners avoiding part of their income tax responsibility. Again I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that no Government senator in this chamber has been prepared to admit the difficulties which the tax is imposing on many people, including small businessmen and farmers, such as the confusion which it is causing because of the great mass of legislation and explanatory notes, which has been compounded by the Government's backing and filling on this tax, and the hardship which is being imposed on people. We raised in debate the situation of Mrs Plozza in Western Australia, an aged war widow, a woman desperately trying to maintain her independence, a woman who found that she was going to be taxed by this Government because she had someone living in her residence who was going to help to look after her and keep her independent. Not one Labor senator had the courage and was prepared to admit that that was a significant problem. Labor front benchers were not prepared to do that. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), responded to representations about the problems of quadriplegics and so on by saying: `We have considered all these matters and as far as we are concerned the tax is right in principle and should be applied'. Not only were the front bench members maintaining that stance, but also the back benchers of this Parliament, who one would have thought would have been a little in touch with the realities in the community, made not one word of criticism of this tax. Mrs Plozza's position has now been remedied. She is representative of one of the few groups whose position has been fixed by the Government, but there are dozens of other situations where hardship is being imposed on the men and women of Australia. Indeed, I wish to devote a good deal of my remarks this afternoon to the areas in which these hardships are being incurred, by people who cannot be described as people who are trying to rip off or take advantage of the tax system. I have yet to hear a Labor person, a Labor senator, a Labor Minister or any Labor spokesman acknowledge the fact that the great bulk of what will be caught under the fringe benefits tax relates to provisions which are made for wage and salary earners who are in no way trying to work the system. Mount Isa Mines Ltd is one example. It has a very heavy cost burden loaded upon it due to this tax. It has given an estimate that 80 per cent of the tax that it pays for fringe benefits is for benefits which are payable to the blue collar work force of that company. Senator Michael Baume —What about the impact on public servants, too? Senator CHANEY —My friend and colleague, Senator Michael Baume, interjects: `What about the impact on public servants?' Literally dozens of categories of people, including public servants, are forced to change their abode at regular intervals and to live in government supplied housing, which will give rise to a liability for this tax. It is quite absurd to suggest that a network of tax avoidance is being caught up by these tax changes. The fact is that the Government has once been forced to review this tax, and that review has proved to be inadequate. It was forced to review it after there had been complaints from the Opposition, which were totally ignored, but then complaints from the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Mr Warburton, from the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Barrie Unsworth, another leading Labor figure at the State level, from the Premier of Western Australia, Brian Burke, another Labor leader, and of course from the Premier of South Australia, Senator Maguire's own State. All of those Premiers had to draw attention to the disadvantages of this tax. Indeed, a senior Minister in the Government, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, in an interview early in October, made his point that there were massive administrative problems with the tax, and that it increased the paper work burden on business. He also said: I don't like people having to do more paper work in business, I think that's crazy. A little later in the same interview he said that he had seen his own form from the Department of the Senate that he had to fill in, and he said: . . . I think it's horrifying. I mention these things because one of the features of the debate on the fringe benefits tax in the Senate has been the gutlessness of Labor participants. Not once have they been prepared to face up to the very real difficulties that their constituents are facing. They come out here as the timid automatons who are told by the Minister to go out and defend the status quo, and they have shown none of the courage which has been shown by some members of the Labor Party in the lower House, who have been prepared to point out the hardships which have been arising under this tax. I hope that today we will see a little less of the sort of pathetic justification of what cannot be justified by the participants in this debate from the Labor Party. I want to refer to what was said by a person that I thought might participate in the debate again today, Senator Graham Richardson. Senator Graham Richardson, of course, is not your ordinary back bench senator. Indeed Senator Graham Richardson is a man who supposedly has direct access to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Indeed he has the sort of access to the Prime Minister that Mr Domican claimed he had to Senator Richardson. So it is a very open and free access and he has a position of very considerable power and influence. Senator Richardson is one of those people who call the shots in the Labor Party. Again, he is not one of the minor players, such as we are being subjected to this afternoon. What did Senator Richardson have to say when he was addressing the Labor Party in the Hunter Valley? I will quote him at some length because this is the first time that, apart from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), a Labor senator has been prepared to admit the truth about this tax. I will tell the Senate what Senator Richardson said in the Hunter Valley on 10 November. He said: I want to give you an example of where I still think there is an improvement to be made in our review of the fringe benefits tax. If you look at the problems faced by Commonwealth Bank employees it is best crystallised. There are some 36,000 people working for the Commonwealth Bank, 2 per cent of them earn salaries of $28,000 or more. What we are talking about here by Australian standards is a low paid work force. The average salary is around $18,000-less than average weekly earnings. The salaries in that Bank have been depressed for years because they are getting another benefit, the benefit of low interest loans. But in the regime that faces Australia today- he is talking about the wages regime- they cannot get a big pay increase to make up for losing a low interest loan . . . and then we make a decision that affects the low interest loan as well. Senator Richardson then went on to explain how the bank clerks reacted to this. He explained that when they had a one-day stoppage in three States, they had one meeting place yet 19,000 out of the 36,000 who were employed at that bank attended meetings. He pointed out that in Australian union history that is extraordinary. He pointed out that that was not a matter of dealing with a union such as the Builders Labourers Federation, that we were dealing with 36,000 white collar employees, not front line radical trotskyites but bank employees-bank tellers and the rest. Why should we focus on the bank tellers? We focus on the bank tellers because that group, who, as Senator Richardson said, are earning less than average weekly earnings, are being directly and immediately affected by the Government's proposals. They, in common with the other people who are being affected by the proposals, have to put up with the fact that continually, from the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, down, they are being accused of being involved in tax rorts and rip-offs, and if they complain they are accused of being the defenders of tax cheats. On their behalf, I emphatically reject that suggestion, as I reject it on behalf of the Opposition. The reality is that the bank clerks are but one small aspect of the enormous impact that this tax is having on the men and women of Australia. I suppose that Mr Arthur Ellis is a good example of another group which is severely affected. Mr Ellis is a car dealer. He is in the car retailing business and he has recently put his West Heidelberg Holden dealership under the hammer because he believes that the Government's tax measures have sapped new car sales to the point of no return. What Mr Ellis, who is a man who is employing 42 other Australians, has said is that the staff have all waited to see what happens on the fall of the hammer, that they are a combined and united team but that the fringe benefits tax has been the final nail in their coffin. So it is not just bank tellers; it is people such as Mr Ellis who are trying to make a living for themselves and for 40 other Australians by running a car dealership. I have raised these concerns about the car industry time and time again in this place. Again I record that honourable senators opposite who come from the vehicle builders union and honourable senators opposite who come from the State of Victoria, from the State of New South Wales and from the State of South Australia, who are affected by the dramatic downturn in the car industry which is costing stability in that industry, have not come in and uttered a peep in defence of those industries; they have uttered not a peep in defence of their States and not a peep in defence of anything except whatever position the Government happens to adopt at the time. They defend the fringe benefits tax in its amended form with the same mindless, blind enthusiasm as they defended the fringe benefits tax before it was amended by the Government itself. Let me quickly refer to some other areas where this tax is impacting and where it can be clearly seen that we are not dealing with the question of tax avoidance but are dealing with simply the requirements of employers to meet certain conditions if they are to carry on business in Australia. This Government is taxing employers under the fringe benefits tax when they take out death and disability insurance for their workers prior to their qualifying for the normal company scheme. If someone puts in bridging insurance to cover his employees against death and disability, this Government will impose a tax on him for doing it. If someone provides, as the Swan Brewery is doing, a carton of beer instead of the free of fringe benefits tax drinking allowance after work, which makes people a potential menace on the road, this Government will tax that person. Senator Robertson —It doesn't. It is $500, and you know it. Senator CHANEY —It does. It imposes the tax. Is it not sad? The dear old senator does not even know how his Government's tax applies. I can tell him that it does apply. This Government is still taxing the Christmas parties for children of employees. I would have thought that Senator Robertson knew the cost of a carton of beer. A carton of beer costs more than $10 a week, if one is getting a carton every week. For a senator who represents the Northern Territory, Senator Ted Robertson is woefully ignorant of the price of beer in this country. Annual picnics for retired employees-now there is a real tax dodge! Does the Senate know that some dreadful tax-dodging employers in this country turn on a picnic for their retired employees, and this Government puts a tax on them if they do? It puts a tax on a subsidy to run a company social club. It puts a tax on rations. It puts a tax on a sheep or a cow provided to pastoral workers. It taxes accommodation which is provided to school teachers, police, bank managers, and ministers of religion who take up country positions. Since I have no more time to deal with examples I will give the Senate an example from Western Australia. From the electorate of Cowan-Premier Brian Burke's electorate-a church group employs a youth worker. It gives that youth worker accommodation so he can work with the many children who are homeless and destitute, or who are street children from that area. That church is having to pay fringe benefits tax on the accommodation which is provided for that youth worker. What an absurdity. This tax is full of those absurdities. There are four reasons that I would like to give now as to why we are opposing this tax in principle. Firstly, the tax is one of unbelievable complexity. There are 139 pages of legislation, 176 pages of explanatory memorandum, two booklets of 69 pages, 14 rulings of 115 pages, plus all the supplementary material relating to the review of the tax which has recently been undertaken. Secondly, it is a tax which is wrong in principle because it puts the tax on people who do not receive the benefit-that is, it puts it on employers. Thirdly, it is a tax which is wrong because it is totally insensitive to the remote areas of Australia. I am horrified that Senator Robertson, who supposedly represents the Northern Territory, would defend a tax which impacts so heavily on the remote areas of Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. Fourthly, it hits at the productive sector of the Australian economy at a time when the economy is in near crisis. This economy is going down the drain-$6,000m down the drain in the first four months of this financial year. The terribly sad thing about it is that this Government is still backed up by a bunch of back benchers who will justify anything. If this Government carried out the massacre of the innocents we would get Senator Maguire in here explaining that this was really the kindest way to get over the problem. I have never seen anything like the way Senator Maguire and Senator McKiernan come in here to justify any act of this Government, no matter how detrimental it is to their State. Let me make it quite clear that we will repeal this tax in all these areas where it should not apply. It will be repealed totally-- Senator Robertson —Lock, stock and barrel. Senator CHANEY —It will be repealed lock, stock and barrel, as somebody helpfully said. Where there is tax avoidance by people on high incomes that will be fixed; they will be caught. There will be no difficulty about that. We will stop taxing the charitable workers, the youth workers, the live-in help at boarding schools, and those literally thousands of Australians who are working for their fellow Australians, who are trying to do the right thing and who are having heavy new tax burdens put on them by this Government. This Government is a disgrace and it should be chucked out lock, stock and barrel. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.30) —On behalf of the Government I oppose the urgency motion which has been moved by Senator Chaney on behalf of the Opposition on the fringe benefits tax. The first thing that came to my mind this afternoon was why on earth the Opposition would want to move an urgency motion on the fringe benefits tax. There is no apparent reason for doing that. I presume that it is to divert attention from other developments in the national capital. Senator Chaney, in his presentation, attacked me on two occasions. (Quorum formed) Before I was interrupted by Senator Messner, who I notice is not speaking in this debate, although he is the Opposition's taxation spokesman-I will be raising the reasons for that in a while-I was explaining why I oppose the motion moved by Senator Chaney this afternoon on the fringe benefits tax. Senator Chaney, in his initial remarks, complained that no Ministers were taking part in the debate. Over the last 18 months on the many occasions we have debated taxation matters in this place Senator Chaney has not won a point. On every occasion Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition in this place, has been drubbed by the Government's back bench. He has been beaten on the arguments time and again, week after week and month after month, by the Government's back bench on the question of taxation. Time and again the Liberal Party of Australia's front bench in this place has been humiliated on the question of taxation by the Government's back bench-not its front bench. Senator Chaney and his colleagues must be a bunch of masochists to want Senator Walsh and Senator Button to debate taxation with them this afternoon when they are losing to the Government's back bench time and again on this subject. I asked myself earlier today why, on this day, Senator Chaney has chosen to move a motion on the fringe benefits tax. It occurred to me that perhaps the only thing the Opposition can agree on at the moment is its opposition to the fringe benefits tax. The Liberal Party is in such a state of disarray and internal shambles that the National Party is now intervening to try to sort out the Liberal Party's leadership. One of the reasons for the Liberal Party's opposition to the fringe benefits tax is that it is trying to sabotage the very substantial personal income tax cuts which will be introduced by this Government in a fortnight's time-on 1 December. The Liberals know just how popular those income tax cuts will be in the community and are trying to white-ant them by moving motions such as the motion Senator Chaney has moved today. They want to weaken the Government's tax avoidance armoury. The fringe benefits tax is vital to that armoury. There has been an explosion of fringe benefits payments in recent years. Estimates available indicate that the loss of revenue due to the payment of fringe benefits would have doubled in a decade had no action been taken by this Government. Not all fringe benefits are tax avoidance mechanisms. I readily concede that. I am aware that people in the community have expressed concern about some fringe benefits not being available on the basis of tax avoidance. I take note of those points. Certainly in-house discounts made to staff are not necessarily tax avoidance devices. But in recent years there has been an explosion in the payment of fringe benefits. In general that explosion reflects a preference for avoiding taxation. The Liberals did nothing on tax avoidance and evasion in the years they were in office. Mr Howard had five Budgets in which to take action on tax avoidance and evasion, but he did nothing to stop the haemorrhaging of the Australian income tax base as a result of the tax avoidance. This afternoon Senator Chaney had the cheek to come in here and claim that there were `record taxes' under this Government. The fact is that in the period of the Fraser-Howard Government the share of gross domestic product going to taxation rose by a massive 1.7 percentage points. That is the record under the Liberals. Despite the fact that they did nothing to stop tax avoidance and evasion, the tax share of gross domestic product still rose by 1.7 percentage points. The Opposition in this place has repeatedly opposed the Government's taxation reform measures. It has opposed the fringe benefits tax. It has opposed the capital gains tax. It has opposed the disallowance of entertainment expenses, commonly known as the free lunch. It opposed our measures last year to crackdown on the free lunch. Time and again ridiculous examples were put forward alleging horrific effects on the Australian economy as a result of this Government's courageous crackdown on the free lunch. The important thing to bear in mind about the taxation reform measures which have been introduced by this Government is that they constitute an integrated tax reform package. Senator Chaney has had some claims here this afternoon about the impact of the fringe benefits tax on the car industry. He has ignored very carefully the fact we are talking about a taxation package and that the overall tax level will not be affected by the package. It is a redistributive package. On 1 December we will be seeing repayment of revenue to the Australian community in the form of personal income tax reductions. Like all Liberals in this place, Senator Chaney has taken a partial view of the tax package. He has looked at one side of the balance, but not the other. He has ignored the fact that the revenues are being paid back to the community. Those revenues, through the reductions in personal income tax and the resulting increases in personal disposable income, will result in greater consumer spending. As personal income tax cuts flow back into the economy the community will see a greater level of consumer spending. The cuts will be spent on a wide range of consumer items in the economy. I presume that one of those items will be motor vehicles. People receiving tax cuts will have more disposable income to spend on them. Overall, the Liberals are essentially trying to sabotage the personal income tax cuts. They have opposed all the revenue measures the Government has brought forward-the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the disallowance of entertainment expenses, which are financing the personal income tax reductions which will occur in a fortnight's time. The Liberals want to preserve the tax avoidance privileges of the few in the community and, in doing so, deny personal income tax reductions to the many. The fringe benefits tax, before the recent amendments were made, was estimated to collect $325m in the current financial year, rising to, in a full year, $700m, including the revenues from the substantiation of allowances. They are very large sums of money. In addition, the disallowance of the free lunch will add another $330m in a full financial year. Without those very substantial sums of money there could not be significant reductions in personal income tax in the near future. The fringe benefits tax is equitable, it is fair, and it will help restore the ability to pay principle in the community. Those who have the greater ability to pay will pay as a result of this measure. That is a very important principle to bear in mind. Previously, two persons with the same total remuneration but with different elements in that remuneration-one receiving all his or her remuneration in the form of wages and salary and the other getting a large share in the form of fringe benefits-paid vastly different amounts of taxation. They were taxed differently under the tax regime the Liberals were happy to live with. That was grossly unfair and totally inequitable. There was an absolute proliferation of fringe benefits under the Liberals. There was very rapid growth in those payments. So quickly did they grow that they could not have had any linkage with economic growth. In the great majority of cases, the growth of fringe benefits clearly constituted a tax avoidance mechanism. School fees at private schools were being paid by employers for their employees' children. Free travel and holidays were being made available. Medical fees were being paid by employers and company cars were being provided. As I have pointed out before in this place, the term `company car' is a misnomer. It is a vehicle that is provided by an employer to an employee. The employer claims a full company tax deduction for that motor vehicle so that we, the rest of the taxpayers, help to pay for that motor vehicle in the first place. The car is then made available essentially for the private use of the employee. Those are the sorts of things that were going on. Research available to this Government has shown that, in the last 12 months, of the total remuneration of some top executives 40 per cent-not 14 per cent but 40 per cent-came in a fringe benefit form. Senator Cooney —How much? Senator MAGUIRE —It was 40 per cent. That was completely untaxed. As I have pointed out before in the Senate, when 40 per cent of a person's total remuneration is being received in that form surely that cannot be described as a fringe benefit. It is no longer a fringe item when 40 per cent of the total pay packet comes in a non-taxed form. That is very inequitable. One of the important principles of taxation is that of horizontal equity. Back in March last year Senator Chaney tried to lecture us on the principle of horizontal equity, and he used the case of a family. The principle applies to taxpayers with similar incomes and suggests that they should be treated similarly in their payment of taxation. Senator Chaney wants that principle to apply in the case of a single taxpayer and in the case of a married taxpayer with a similar income but he does not want it to apply where one taxpayer receives all his or her remuneration in wages and salary and the other receives a large element of the remuneration in non-cash benefits. That is a gross inconsistency by Senator Chaney who is prepared to apply the horizontal equity principle in some cases but not in others. What is unfair about cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion through these measures? What is wrong with cracking down on blatant tax avoidance in the form of non-monetary remuneration? I put it to the Senate that there is nothing at all wrong with that. It is very important that these measures be undertaken and that the Senate take note of the points made by the Government in support of its policy of cracking down on tax avoidance through fringe benefits. The Liberals are showing their true colours in opposing the crackdown. They are protecting the rorts, they are protecting tax avoidance, they are protecting the privileged. That is their role in the community. In this motion today Senator Chaney has claimed that the fringe benefits tax is having adverse consequences for low income earners. That is the first time since I have been a member of this place that the Liberal Party has even mentioned the needs and aspirations of low income earners. Factual data is available which undermines the sorts of claims made this afternoon by Senator Chaney about the distributive effects of the fringe benefits tax. I refer to the Australian Bureau of Statistics employment benefits survey, which shows that the payment of fringe benefits is very highly skewed to the highest income earners in the community. I point out in regard to transport fringe benefits-a major category-that in August 1985, 7.1 per cent of all employees received transport fringe benefits. Of persons in the lowest income bracket in that survey-those earning below $200 weekly-only 3.3 per cent received a transport fringe benefit. In the highest income bracket in the survey-those earning over $560 a week-the proportion of those who received transport fringe benefits was not 7.1 per cent but 18.8 per cent. Clearly, the availability of fringe benefits is not emphasised for low income earners so much as for high income earners. Fringe benefits are very much more available-certainly transport fringe benefits, the company car-to the highest income earners. As I pointed out this afternoon, the tax changes made by the Government will help finance personal income tax reductions for the many. In trying to prevent the fringe benefits tax proceeding fully the Opposition is really trying to sabotage the significant personal income tax reductions which will occur on 1 December next. The revenue to be collected from the fringe benefits tax will be paid back in tax reductions. The tax free threshold, currently $4,595, will be raised to $5,100. Tax rates will be reduced across the board. The 25c rate will be reduced to 24c-lower than any tax rate that Mr Howard, as Treasurer of this country, could achieve in five Budgets. The 46c rate will be reduced to 43c and the 60c rate will be reduced to 55c in the dollar. Those changes in tax rates are very significant. As a result of those and the increase in the tax free threshold, a person receiving a gross weekly income of $400 will receive a tax cut of over $6 a week. A person on $300 a week will receive a tax cut of $4.50 a week. When these cuts are combined with the first instalment of the Government's taxation reductions in November 1984 they come out to a figure of $13.60 for a person on $400 a week and over $12 a week for a taxpayer receiving $300 a week. Those are very significant reductions in personal taxation. There will be a further round of tax cuts next July when the 46c rate, which will be 43c in December, is further reduced to 40c in the dollar. The Liberals could never achieve those sorts of reductions in taxation. They are possible only with the advent and introduction of the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the disallowance of entertainment expenses. They are part of a taxation package. The revenues from the fringe benefits tax will be paid back as cuts in personal income tax. This Government is restoring integrity to the Australian taxation system. That system will receive more respect because the ability to pay principle has been restored. The Opposition would abandon tax measures to crack down on such things as fringe benefits. As a result, it would jeopardise personal income tax reductions for the many. Unfortunately, the Liberals have no credibility on taxation. They have no policies on taxation. As the Daily Telegraph pointed out on 6 November, the whole of Australia is waiting and demanding to see what will constitute the Liberals' taxation policies. On behalf of the Government I oppose this motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.50) —I believe that the Government should take some note of the Senate as well as the Senate taking some note of the Government. During the debate on the fringe benefits tax legislation all of the so-called unexpected effects of the fringe benefits tax were fully canvassed within this Senate. If the Government had listened and had modified the tax suitably we would not be having this type of problem. That does not mean that having got this far the Australian Democrats should support the Opposition's motion which suggests that we should be abolishing the fringe benefits tax. Per se the fringe benefits tax is equitable. It is a sensible tax only as long as we have an income tax. We should have justice within the income tax system and the fringe benefits tax is one of the ways in which we can achieve justice within an income tax system in the same way as a capital gains tax is a way in which we can achieve justice within an income tax system. I personally would prefer the burden of taxation to be otherwise distributed than with such an emphasis on income tax; I would prefer to see a tax system based on consumption rather than one based on production. Any country which taxes production in the way in which this country does is probably not going to do anything but move itself closer to becoming a banana republic. We are not encouraging people to take risks through our total income tax system. We are not encouraging or stimulating private enterprise. During the debate on the fringe benefits tax the Australian Democrats suggested that the fringe benefits tax should be raised from employees, not from employers. We would have supported such a move. We argued strongly for this at the time and when we voted for the tax package we said that we would much prefer the fringe benefits tax to be charged to those people who were getting the benefits. However, this was not acceptable to the Australian Labor Party and to the unions, so we have the current hotch potch or mess. There is one thing on which we agree with the Opposition and that is that the fringe benefits tax is a mess as it is currently implemented. The Government was elected on a platform of tax reform, of consensus between employers and employees and on a program of cutbacks in bureaucracy and regulations. For 12 months or so it tried to keep to this program. The Government made the accord, which was one step forward. It held the National Taxation Summit at which it put forward what could be called a sensible and dynamic tax package-admittedly a watered down version. At least the Government had option C but it gave it up within two or three days. It did not persevere with Option C. Instead it proposed a whole extra patchwork of additions on the taxation system. This is when the whole process started to go backwards. The Government has since been trying to seal loopholes and rorts and in the process has created a number more. The bureaucracy seems to be flourishing, even more than during the Whitlam era when it grew at large rates. The Government has retreated further by selling its integrity to financiers and the publicity merchants in the multi-media networks in order to shore itself up with the voters. The fringe benefits tax is very much a fringe issue. As Senator Chaney has said, this is the fifth time the Opposition has brought it up. I believe it has done it more often than that because it seems to slip it into almost any debate that happens. It has succeeded in stirring up quite a lot of interest within the community in this area but a lot of that interest is totally misinformed. Bank employees are not the people who are suffering from the fringe benefits tax. Senator Watson —Not the bank employees? Senator VIGOR —The bank employees are not suffering. It is the employers who are actually paying it. The Opposition should be insisting-an example is the Commonwealth Bank of Australia-that those banks which are currently trying to cash out the benefits should be re- negotiating a new package in which the employees can now get better terms. They actually have a chance to tell the banks to cash out the benefits in a sensible and reasonable way. There is nothing in the arbitration and conciliation process which stops them from doing that, despite all the noises that Senator Watson and his colleagues may make. I am not going to defend the Government's position but I am certainly not going to support the type of drivel that we are getting from the Opposition when it says that all employees will be worse off because of the fringe benefits tax. The tax falls on employers. I do agree that Mr Ellis, a car dealer, may be worse off if he organised his employment program so that he paid vast amounts to his employees in fringe benefits. In that circumstance I believe it is reasonable that the taxpayer should retrieve tax on the money. Mr Ellis has had the benefit of that extra low taxation rate for quite a long time. Frankly, a lot of complete and utter rubbish is being talked about this tax. The country is currently in dire straits; we need to solve trade problems. Five times matters of public importance and urgency motions, which we cannot support, have been put forward. The issue is not taxation; it is trade. If the Labor Government really wants to solve the taxation problem it has to grasp the nettle and try to deal with some of the real rorts that are in the system. Fringe benefits are the fringe issues. The main tax evasion issues which are facing us currently are off-shore tax evasion, tax havens and transfer pricing by which large industrial organisations are twisting their way out of major amounts of tax. The major rorts are in the area of negative gearing by which large takeover merchants are actually financing their operations at the taxpayer's expense. Indeed, if the Opposition were willing to take up those types of issues we would support it on an urgency motion and tell the Government what it needs to do. The real issue is that the country is currently going down the gurgler simply because the Government is not grasping the real opportunities of trying to boost business. It is not offering a stable environment for business. We are ending up with more rather than fewer senseless regulations. (Quorum formed) As I was saying, the real issues which are currently before us and which we have to face are the issues of a worsening trade balance. We are currently not facing any of the real tax issues. The real tax issues, as I said, are in the area of transfer pricing. We can probably retrieve about $1.2 billion from people who are distorting their trade figures. We can probably retrieve about half a billion dollars from the area of negative gearing and maybe a lot more. We can retrieve $40m if we are willing to make the advertising of tobacco non-deductible. These are all issues on which we, the Australian Democrats, have offered to support the Government. The Government has failed in these areas. It has lacked the imagination to take up these opportunities. It is no wonder that the country is in a mess when the Government is not prepared to take up any reasonable new measures so that there can be equity in the tax system. The Opposition simply repeats itself and shouts about fringe issues, like the fringe benefits tax. Senator Jessop —What about the motor industry in South Australia? It is suffering very badly. Senator VIGOR —The motor industry in South Australia is an industry that we consulted when we considered changing the fringe benefits tax. While the Opposition was flat-footed in opposing the tax, we actually modified it so that it became fair and reasonable. We wish we could have removed its application to remote areas. If it comes back to us, we will probably do that, because benefits in remote areas are not fringe benefits; they readjust the problems between the cities and the country. The major problem that we have is a parliament which does not have the strength to face the Executive. Labor members and the Labor Caucus are not willing to call the Executive to account. We have a parliament in which the Liberals are completely lacking in ideas and in ability to present an alternative program to the people of Australia, and to save us from the fate towards which this Government is moving us-that is, the fate of becoming a third rate banana republic. I believe that we must face this issue fairly and squarely and stop wasting the time of the Senate with motions of this type when we have so much legislation to debate and when people are complaining about it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.05) —I hope that the tens of thousands of bank employees tuned in to listen to Senator Vigor's fine speech, in which he stated that they will not really be disadvantaged, that they will actually be advantaged because they will get more as a result of the fringe benefits tax. Senator Vigor should try to convince them. He does not have a hope. He has just wiped out tens of thousands of votes for his Party by the stance he has taken. At least Australian Labor Party back benchers are decent enough and have the honour to remain silent and cringe in their corner. The Senate is debating as a matter of urgency the need to abolish an indefensible tax, a new tax the first payments of which are due in just a few days time. I refer, of course, to this indefensible, inequitable Hawke Government fringe benefits tax. It is not a Labor Party tax in the true sense. Save for only one exception, and then only in very limited circumstances, it has no equal anywhere else in the world. It is morally indefensible because it requires one person who is not in receipt of an income or gain from the benefit, to pay the tax on the benefit or gain which is given to another person, that other person being an employee. In a nutshell, a person has a statutory obligation to pay another person's tax. This, I believe, is a precedent which could have far wider ramifications. For example, it could require an employer, as the next step, to pay part of the group tax. It is preposterous that a person paying the so-called benefit-and there are hundreds of cases in which one could hardly call it a benefit-must pay a tax at a rate which is equal to, or greater than, his own personal tax rate. That is preposterous. Even more cruel and stupid is the fact that this tax must be paid quarterly. Unlike other taxes, such as the prescribed payments tax or income tax, there is no annual adjustment or equaliser. The Labor Party has introduced a flat tax on ordinary individuals. It bears no relationship to a persons' ability to pay. It is a tax on costs; it is not a tax on profits. Following months of public dissent, despite what honourable senators opposite say, the Hawke Government finally conceded that the fringe benefits tax was unworkable. But it was not honest enough to use those words. It did say that there were some technical problems. It did say that there were some unintended consequences. It had a big tax summit or something like that, but very little resulted from it. Following the review, Louise Dodson, in an article in the Australian Financial Review of 30 October, stated: The fringe benefits tax . . . emerged intact from the Federal Government review . . . the modifications, while designed to stem the rising electoral opposition preserve the essential structure of the tax . . . the outcome of the Government's review reflects political rather than economic considerations. I repeat: Political rather than economic considerations. Is that not dreadful? It is not a tax which is based on equity grounds, it is not a tax which is based on economic grounds; it is a tax which is based on political grounds, because the Government lacked the fortitude to do it in the right way. It could not get it right. So it had political considerations. Indeed, the Government has merely tinkered at the edges and has offered no change to the flawed basic assumptions or principles of the tax. I contend that the fringe benefits tax remains complex and difficult to understand, and it is an administrative nightmare. Despite the deletion of a few of the more ridiculous imposts regarding such needy individuals and organisations as the aged, the physically and mentally handicapped, working mothers and companies that give minor safety awards and emergency aid to employees, I believe, and the Liberal Party believes, that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has failed to address the numerous anomalies which must be regarded now as intended consequences-not unintended consequences, because the Government reckons it has wiped them out. Investors are not investing at present and this is having a detrimental effect on both employment and growth. The Economic Planning Advisory Council, which is really a government body, has shown that private sector investment as a percentage of gross domestic product is at its lowest level for 25 years and is falling. Our manufacturers are not on the verge of a dramatic export boom as some colleagues of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, would like him to believe. In fact, the major disquiet of business is coming from high interest rates, uncertainties in the economy, high inflation and high taxation. Business will only invest in productive resources when the real rate of return on a particular investment exceeds the available return on low risk financial assets such as Commonwealth bonds. I have said that time and time again. Honourable senators opposite have said that it is boring, but it is correct, and until the Government gets that message it will never get things right. The studies by EPAC and Syntec all point to the same thing-that taxes and costs are crippling business. Today business estimates that merely to cover the costs of borrowing funds and paying taxes-honourable senators should listen to this-the rate of return has to be 25 per cent. Good on the Government; it has to be 25 per cent! I take it as a compliment that when I come into this chamber to speak I can fill this House with Australian Labor Party senators. It was an empty chamber before I came in and it is a compliment that I am getting so many interjections. Government senators try to stop me speaking on every occasion. There are still major problems with this tax despite major changes and despite the nearly 100 pages of income tax rulings to get it right. What have we got? It is still excessively complex and it is excessively filled with prescriptions. It includes a wide range of items which are incidental to employment and which are not regarded as fringe benefits so far as businesses are concerned. The other big problem is that it is a tax on the employer and not on the employee. One of the atrocious features of this tax the Labor Party has introduced is that it legitimises the payment of fringe benefits, as never before in the history of this country, to the tall poppies, to the top people. People in managerial positions are better off under this Government's fringe benefits tax than under the previous regime. The people who are worst off are the lower paid people, the poorer ones, the bank employees, who are generally the people who are supposed to vote for the Labor Party. But the real losers are the middle income earners, the salary earners and all these sorts of people. I think there is a lack of appreciation of the real costs to business and the administrative burden imposed as a result of the compliance provisions of this tax. I know that Senator Button tried to reform it, but he did not try hard enough because he did not win the day on this. I wish to give a warning to the Government. One of the iniquitous features of this Government's fringe benefits tax is that it has made a decision not to introduce these so-called far reaching amendments until 1987. The Government had five clear weeks between the time of its so-called summit, which was a shemozzle and a farce, to the rising of the House of Representatives to at least introduce that legislation. That the Government did not do so reflects its low priorities in this area. What did it say? It gave a poor excuse, a bloody poor excuse, I might say, because it said that the parliamentary draftsmen were too busy. What an excuse! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator Watson, when I am in the Chair that type of language will not be used. I ask you to resume your speech and not to use that type of language again. Senator WATSON —It is a low reflection of the Government's priorities in relation to this area. It had five weeks in which to put that legislation. Taxpayers will be required to lodge two instalments, not knowing what the legislation is as it will not have been passed. The Government has not even had the decency to say that it will be passed some time in 1987. Instead of removing the complexities, the Government has added to uncertainty and problems. What are the taxpayers going to be liable for? If, as a result of the uncertainty, taxpayers omit something, they are told that there will be no penalty but they will be liable to pay an additional 20 per cent, plus the 49 per cent tax which is owing, and there will be no dispensation on the tax return for that 20 per cent penalty interest. If a taxpayer overestimates his benefits, the Commissioner will reconsider it some time in the future, a refund will be granted and interest will be paid at the rate of 14 per cent. But the taxpayer will pay full tax on that 14 per cent of his assessable income. By cripes, the Government has it loaded against the taxpayers. Let us talk about the log book. The Government reckons it has done a great thing by reducing the period one has to keep a log book to just three months. But what the Government is doing is enabling some of the biggest rorts to be exercised by business that could ever be imagined. The Government has fallen for the three card trick and it is going to make the system work for those who are prepared to push the system, and push it to the edge. Some people will be able to buy a Mercedes Benz car, legitimately drive it hard for three months and get maximum private milage out of it. It is an absolute disgrace the way that the Government has handled this. The small print or the catch clause that people are not aware of in this iniquitous tax is that if there is a 10 per cent variation in business usage, they will have to re-do their log books. Effectively, everybody is going to have to keep a log book continuously because, by virtue of the penalties, they cannot afford to have more than a 10 per cent variation in their original calculation. It is going to be abused by country travellers who have a country and city constituency. They will run up country milage pretty quickly and quite legitimately. This is a real rort and the Government has not thought it through. It is creating more rorts for the top people. This is the blessed problem that the Government is introducing. Honourable senators opposite love examples and I will give them the example of a Labor Party electorate in New South Wales. Obviously the poor tend to be in Labor Party electorates. A lot of country kids find it difficult nowadays to get jobs in country towns or in the bush. So mum and dad send them into the city to try to find jobs. They are conscious about the need to have a reasonable state of accommodation for their children. They cannot afford to pay too much, so a number of community groups and church groups have organised boarding houses in which there is provision for 24-hour supervision by an adult who has free board and accommodation. There is a condition attached. Most of these organisations require some discipline and that is the attraction for parents. They send their kids to these boarding houses because they do not want them to mix with too rough an element. There are thousands of conditions but one of the conditions could be that the kids have to attend church once on Sunday-no particular religion because it does not matter. It is iniquitous that these organisations should pay fringe benefits tax. The real sleeper for the Labor Party is going to be the capital gains tax. When all our sporting heroes change from amateur status to professional status and receive a signing on fee, capital gains tax will apply. There is no cost base for offsetting this provision. They will be punished for good. This is going to be the real sleeper. The Labor Party is going to lose thousands of votes after the introduction of the capital gains tax because all this is going to be taxed at the marginal tax rate. The Labor Party is in trouble. It is embarrassed and it wants to know what the Liberal Party's attitude is. It is in trouble and it cannot find a way out for itself. I can tell honourable senators opposite that we are going to keep them on tenter-hooks because we are not going to let them have our secrets. We have got the answers. They are looking for them. They are in trouble and they have to face the next election. When they tell us when the election is, we will appropriately tell them how we are going to reduce taxes for the Australian electorate. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(4.20) —This afternoon the Senate is discussing a matter of urgency put forward by the Opposition. It reads: The need to abolish the Fringe Benefits Tax because of the extra cost burden it imposes on business, industry and the rural community, its unfair impact on relatively low income earners such as bank officers and the effect it will have on voluntary, charitable, religious and educational organisations and institutions. The matter of urgency was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, from Western Australia. We find ourselves in very unfortunate circumstances because Senator Chaney, in indicating that this is a matter of urgency supported by Opposition honourable senators, put forward perhaps the weakest proposition that the worthy senator has ever put forward in this place. That is a reflection not only on honourable senators opposite but also on the Government. For the Government to be effective it needs a good Opposition. Senator Chaney is one of the brightest sparks on the Opposition benches, and if what is happening within the coalition is affecting one of its brightest people in that way, then the Government will not be kept on its toes in the way it ought to be. Senator Chaney made a number of points in his contribution. He referred to the impact of the tax on auto dealers, and that is something I particularly want to address later in my contribution. I have talked to auto dealers in my home State of Western Australia, the State I represent in this chamber. Senator McIntosh —It wasn't Peter Shack, was it? Senator McKIERNAN —Certainly it was not Peter Shack. However, I certainly spoke to a Western Australian company and I will deal with that matter later. Senator Chaney and Senator Watson cried some crocodile tears about bank officers. They referred to the impact of the fringe benefits on bank officers. I do not know how many times Senator Chaney has actually spoken with bank officers. Not only have I done so but I had the privilege of attending the meeting the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association held in Perth when they made the historic decision to stop work for the first time in their history. The bank officers stopped work not because of what the Government is doing but because of what the management of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation is doing. They were not protesting about the Government's action at all. The people to whom I spoke during that meeting are fully in support of what this Government is doing to bring about an equitable tax system, a system we have desired for so long. However, the crocodile tears continued and are reflected in the matter of urgency that is before the chamber. It raises questions such as voluntary and charitable organisations. What do voluntary and charitable organisations think about the fringe benefits tax? I refer the Senate to the Adelaide Advertiser of 2 October this year in which the Executive Director of the Victorian Council of Social Service, Mr Tony Lawson, is reported as saying: We will be actively promoting the value of the fringe benefits tax in a variety of ways. The voluntary organisations to which Senator Chaney referred and about which he shed crocodile tears are actually supporting the fringe benefits tax. Later in that newspaper article Mr Lawson is reported as saying: Before it was introduced a whole lot of people, business bludgers, were not paying their way in Australia. The campaign against the tax was doomed . . . He was referring to the campaign that Mr Ansett launched against the fringe benefits tax. Mr Lawson is also quoted as saying: . . . people will recognise it as a campaign by a bunch of business wimps who are crying because the Government now requires them to pay their way in society. Mr Lawson was referring to the voluntary organisations that Senator Chaney and Senator Watson shed crocodile tears for, and no doubt Senator Bjelke-Petersen also will shed crocodile tears in her contribution to this matter of urgency. In concluding his speech Senator Chaney mentioned a number of things which he believed would enable his Party to attain government. After his performance today that will be many years and many elections hence, unless something dramatic happens. The Opposition will not continue a number of measures such as the fringe benefits tax should it ever reach the government benches. I think the people of Australia deserve something better than this matter of urgency. I understand it is the fifth time it has come before the Senate. Today we heard Senator Chaney say that the Opposition would not tax certain areas. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) say what the Opposition would not do about taxation; but what this country is crying out for-indeed, the Opposition has an obligation to do this-is someone who will put forward some alternatives. That is just not happening. Various spokespeople from the Opposition have said that the Opposition will abolish the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the tax on lump sum superannuation payments. The coalition's promises on lower taxation include the reinstitution of the entertainment expenses allowance-the free lunches. It will work towards the reinstitution of negative gearing on rental properties. It will seek a full flow-on of world oil price reductions. It will work towards the abolition of fuel excise indexation and the abolition of sales tax on oils and lubricants. It will seek to abolish the tax on wine. It will introduce child care rebates and restore income equalisation deposits and tax averaging. It will repeal the assets test. It will spend additional money on defence. It will reintroduce the full petroleum products freight subsidisation scheme. It will put a floor price on sugar of $240 a tonne and it will work towards the abolition of export inspection charges. This total package will cost in excess of $600m. The people of Australia are crying out: `What are the Opposition's tax policies?' We are getting silence from the other side, and that is understandable because Opposition members are otherwise engaged at the moment. Mr Andrew Hay, one of the leaders of the New Right, said in Perth recently 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. The Opposition is yapping and doing other things because it has enormous problems within the Liberal Party at the moment. The coalition also has problems, judging from the comments attributed to Mr Sinclair the other day. The fringe benefits tax has been a controversial tax. It is a tax about equity and justice in the Australian taxation system. We have seen an enormous shift over the years to those people who cannot in any way, and who mostly do not want to, avoid or evade paying their normal taxes. We have seen a growth in the areas of tax evasion and tax avoidance in this nation which has never before been witnessed. The growth has had its impact on the ordinary, honest wage and salary earners of Australia, who have had to pay up and finance the expenditures of government. There is no other way around it for such people. However, people in top positions within the free enterprise system can take steps to avoid paying tax. The point must be made that the Government has reformed the taxation system to achieve a position of justice and equity. On 1 December-a week on Monday-Australian taxpayers will have their marginal rates of taxation reduced. The 25c in the dollar rate will go down to 24c; the 30c in the dollar rate will go down to 20c; the 46c rate will be reduced to 43c; the 48c rate will be reduced to 46c; and the 60c rate will be reduced to 55c. On 1 July next year the 43c rate will be reduced to 40c; the 46c rate will also come down to 40c; and the 55c rate will come down to 49c. For the first time the taxpayers of this country will be assured of picking up a majority of the income that they earn. This was not the case when the Opposition was in government. In the seven years that it occupied the treasury bench, the only real growth industry in this country was tax avoidance and tax evasion. Because it is a controversial tax, as most taxes are, this tax has been, and it continues to be, subjected to campaigns of exaggeration, distortion and, indeed, lies by the various interest groups and the Opposition. Senator Parer —And unintended consequences. Senator McKIERNAN —Senator Parer, they are trying to detract from the essential fact that the fringe benefits tax introduces for the first time fairness to the system and real tax cuts for the people we represent-the wage and salary earners of this country. Senator Chaney had something to say about auto dealers. I do not know why he did not mention an auto dealer from Western Australia. I do not know what the relationships of the Liberal Party in Western Australia are at the moment. Perhaps the Liberal Party is in a state of flux in Western Australia just as it is in Canberra at the moment. The auto dealer that I am particularly concerned about is a company known as Eurocars, an up-market auto dealer which operates in South Perth, Western Australia. The Managing Director of that company is one Mr Rod Slater. Mr Slater had the wisdom, if one can call it that, to send a letter to each of his employees. That letter was later copied by Mr Gordon Crump who operates two car yards-one at Kewdale and the other at Victoria Park in Western Australia. The letter is fairly lengthy and time will not allow me to refer to it in detail. However, I will quote part of it. Mr Slater made the point that fringe benefits given to employees are usually given as a token of appreciation. Honourable senators on this side of the House and the other side of the House know that employers very rarely give anything without some form of struggle. The letter stated: If I support your Social Club then I am `fined'. If I permit you to work on your own car on my premises, then I am `fined'. If I offer you the unwanted packaging that our spare parts arrive in, I am `fined'. If I permit you to use my trailer to collect a load of wood for a dying pensioner in your neighbourhood- that is sick- then I am `fined'. If I allow you to take home any of my tools or equipment to work on your own car, even if that equipment would otherwise lie idle, even if that equipment would reduce the danger of injury to you, then again I am `fined'. What a gross distortion of reality and facts this letter is. This letter was circulated to individual employees with a plea for them to examine their consciences the next time they vote. Mr Slater makes the point in his letter: As your employer, it is not my prerogative to instruct you how to vote, however I wish to encourage you how not to vote. This is an appalling example of free enterprise in Australia. Senator Chaney made some reference to me as a representative of Western Australia. I ask him where he stands in respect of the comments made by his colleague the Liberal member for Murchison-Eyre in the House of Assembly in Western Australia who last evening called for secession by Western Australia from the Commonwealth. I wonder where that would leave the Liberal Party in this place which is at the moment lacking leadership. Although a little leadership is being given by Senator Chaney, the honourable senator would not be a member of this place if Western Australia seceded. I hear that the yapping dogs have returned. I want to conclude my speech by putting forward the following words of wisdom for the whole of Australia: A fair country deserves a fair tax system. That is what this Government is giving to the people of Australia. It is something which is long overdue. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(4.35) —I support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). It states: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to abolish the Fringe Benefits Tax because of the extra cost burden it imposes on business, industry and the rural community, its unfair impact on relatively low income earners such as bank officers and the effect it will have on voluntary, charitable, religious and educational organisations and institutions. In supporting the motion, there is no doubt in my mind, and probably in the minds of most people in Australia, that the Federal Labor Government has completely misread the Australian public on the issue of fringe benefits taxation. The Government is in a terrible mess and I am sure that it knows it. Everywhere I go across Queensland, people are totally confused and very concerned about the fringe benefits tax. First, there was the massive 150-page document which the Federal Government handed around and said: `Well, here it is-work it out for yourself'. Then, a few weeks ago, the Government decided that it had better look as though it was going to remedy a few of the anomalies so now the people of Australia, unfortunately, are more confused than ever. Senator Richardson and I are not often in agreement but I would have to say that I agree with what he said recently about the fact that the fringe benefits tax will affect many low income earners and struggling Australian families. Senator Richardson mentioned specifically bank employees who are losing their cheap home loans. I must say that I saw an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald which said that banks were facing disruption over the fringe benefits tax. It also pointed out that bank workers are the largest group of employees to suffer under the fringe benefits tax through the banks' proposal to increase the interest on loans and credit cards. As a result, the banks and Australians are faced with threatened pre-Christmas disruptions in the banking sector. That is what has happened in only one of the many areas which are affected by the fringe benefits tax. I am concerned particularly about the families who are employed on farms or who move around the country doing seasonal work. The fringe benefits tax certainly affects them. Every time they have a meal, their employer is taxed a dollar. The employer only has to provide a cow to enable his employees to have fresh milk and that is regarded as a fringe benefit and is subjected to tax. Of course, accommodation provided to employees on the farm is also subject to fringe benefits tax. School teachers, likewise, are adversely affected. Many teachers are posted to country towns around Queensland, and throughout every State in Australia, and have to complete a two or three-year term of service. I would say that they always do a very good job. Of course, the Education Department has to give them a place to live as these people do not automatically stay at one place for a very long time. The Federal Government has now decided that it is going to tax the cost of the accommodation provided to school teachers. The same applies to wardens and to live-in house keepers-they will all be subject to the tax. Families living in coal mining towns are in a bad way, too. The mining companies have for years spent millions of dollars making these towns better places in which to live. They are the types of towns to which young families would be attracted-they offer the most modern facilities and accommodation. Now, of course, the Government says to the mining companies that they have to pay tax on money they give for community projects, roads or subsidised travel. Senator Button —How much money does the Queensland Government rip off them in rail charges? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —The Queens- land Government does its fair share. The mining companies cannot now provide subsidised housing. Queensland towns like Dysart and Middlemount, which I visited a month or so ago, are both very go-ahead places which are providing very modern standards of facilities and housing. I might say, too, to the members of this Senate that the State Government in Queensland has done a tremendous lot to help towns like Middlemount, Dysart and Morenbah develop and grow. That is what happens in Queensland all the time. There is so much growth and development that Queensland is going ahead and leaving all the other States for dead. Certainly these towns are going to suffer from the fringe benefits tax. What really annoys me is that this tax is hitting hard at those sectors of the community which are really our export earning industries, those sectors which provide a lot of the export earnings from which this Federal Government benefits. I am sure Senator Button would be the first to recognise that through the mineral and agricultural exports from Queensland Australia's export earnings have grown a lot. It has been suggested in some quarters that the fringe benefits tax will force rural workers in the outback to use kerosene lamps and meat safes. No doubt that is because of the fringe benefits tax being put on power provided by the owners of properties for their employees. Despite provisions for the so-called unintended consequences that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) talks about so glibly, the fringe benefits tax is still a tax on exports. It will slug the agricultural and mining sectors which, as I said, contribute the bulk of Australia's export income. Despite changes to the remote area housing provisions, the tax will still cost the mining industry about $40m a year. Farmers will still be hit for accommodation supplied to a farm worker and his family. The fringe benefits tax will make both these sectors less competitive at a time when international commodity prices are low. I would like to quote from the editorial of the Australian of 8 October, which I think sums up fairly accurately the National Party of Australia attitude to the effects of the fringe benefits tax. It stated: The fringe benefits tax will particularly hit those Australians, mainly concentrated in vital export industries, who are attempting to develop the Outback, in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. In order to attract a work force to these remote areas it is necessary to offer subsidised housing and transport. These are not the kind of fringe benefits which should be taxed, as they are essential elements of working in the Outback, not the rorts designed to avoid tax. `Hear, hear', I say. The effects of the fringe benefits tax on small and big businesses throughout the country will also be enormous. It has been estimated that some 590 public servants will have to be employed at a cost of about $20m just to administer this tax. Already $382,000-odd has been spent on producing the fringe benefits tax booklet, which explains absolutely nothing to those who are to be affected. I had to take that booklet to my tax man to have it explained. I think I am a fairly astute person. I have already paid my first instalment on the tax, a little bit early, I must say, but I went ahead and did it because we have to have caretakers looking after our home in the Bunya Mountains, so the tax was payable. But we cannot claim for it on income tax, so we will have to pay not only the ordinary tax but also this fringe benefits tax. It is bad enough for us to have to pay it, but how will some people on the land, who have no income, be able to pay the fringe benefits tax? Senator Collard —They will have to borrow at high interest rates. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —That is exactly what they will have to do, borrow at high interest rates. That is another cause of complaint about this Government, the high interest rates. An amount of $1.6m has gone to providing 54 public servants just to man the tax hot lines. An article in the Australian of 29 August reports that a survey of 80 small to medium Australian companies found that the FBT will result in fewer jobs, reduce investment, and higher prices. I hope that the Government is not foolish enough to assume that costs such as these to big and small businesses throughout Australia will go unnoticed by the average man or woman in the street. According to chartered accountants Arthur Andersen and Co., 65 per cent of the 70 major companies it surveyed said that they would pass on the fringe benefits tax induced costs to consumers. These are some of the real problems, as I see it. Another report in the Australian indicates that, while the Department of Defence estimates its fringe benefits tax liability at $90m this year and $115m in a full year, the Armed Forces Federation of Australia says that it could easily be around $200m. While I am on the subject of the defence forces, let me enlighten honourable senators with this fascinating little piece of information that I found out. A member of the Department of Defence said that the Department is paying between $70m and $150m in fringe benefits tax, but it is paying more in fringe benefits tax than it is paying for ammunition to defend this country. If that is not the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard, I do not know what is. Likewise, the Taxation Office is having to pay itself $400,000 in fringe benefits tax. If it were not so serious and so unbelievably stupid, it would almost be laughable. I am not laughing, and I do not think the majority of hard-working tax paying Australians out there in the real world are laughing either, because there certainly is a real problem. As far as I am concerned, the fringe benefits tax still contains a great number of very serious anomalies, despite the review that was conducted just before the Queensland election. We all know why it was conducted then. It was done then to try to help the Australian Labor Party get into power. Senator Walters —It didn't help it much. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —As Senator Walters says, it did not help the Labor Party to get into power. It got only just over 40 per cent of the vote, and that is very interesting. Unfortunately the Labor Party does not accept the fact of preferential-type voting. Between us and our Liberals up there, we got well over 50 per cent of the vote. Senator Brownhill —Fifty-six per cent plus. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —That is quite right. These are some of the things that are of great concern. The Labor Party could get only just over 40 per cent, and that is certainly not enough to govern in Queensland. I could go on and on about the anomalies that have been caused by this fringe benefits tax. I think of the Government's treatment of religious people. It seems to me to be a very poor state of affairs when a nun is forced to pay fringe benefits tax because she uses a church vehicle just to do her weekly shopping and things like that. These are some of the things that I am sure are causing a lot of bother. I can quote even leaders of the various State governments on this. Barrie Unsworth, the New South Wales Labor Leader, said that Labor's electoral standing was being harmed as a result of the fringe benefits tax. Even Tom Burns, the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party in Queensland-I do not know how long he will be in that position because they say they are going to get rid of him-said that the fringe benefits tax was `sheer stupidity'. John Bannon and John Cain have both talked about the fringe benefits tax. Senator Walters —And John Button. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Yes, Senator Button himself, on the Michael Schildberger show, went on record as saying that he did not want to debate the technicalities of the fringe benefits tax but he thought that the form was horrifying. He said that, if it is too difficult for him, he could appreciate that it would be difficult for others. Perhaps that is why I found it rather difficult to fill in the form when I got it. These are some of the things that are very worrying and should concern people. There is no two ways about it. I also want to draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) made an astounding admission when he said that the Government would not impose the fringe benefits tax on employees because of fear of industrial turmoil. What does that say to honourable senators? It says to me that the trade unions are the bosses in this Government. In fact, as I have said so often, the Australian Council of Trade Unions is the de facto government of Australia. If Bob Hawke had stayed President of the ACTU he might have been running Australia right now. That is something we really should think about. There is so much that I want to say about this. The fringe benefits tax is a bad idea. Our economy is sinking further into the mire every day and yet this Government wants to tax the employers further. There is no doubt that the fringe benefits tax will slow down economic growth even further. I support the motion of urgency that has been moved by Senator Chaney to abolish this fringe benefits tax. When we get back into government after the next election we will abolish this dreadful burden on Australia's productive capacity. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.50) —As I understand it, the Opposition is saying that when it gets back into office-if it ever gets back-it will abolish the fringe benefits tax. If we take that to its logical conclusion we get to this point: The fringe benefits tax is simply a tax on income, not in terms of financial income but in terms of benefits such as school fees, free cars, free and cheap loans, and so on. Does the Opposition intend to abolish income tax? Given some of its arguments so far, one might well expect that it will. As Senator McKiernan says, it will abolish so many taxes that there will be nothing left to pay for the running of the country. If it is not going to abolish income tax, why does it seek to abolish tax on certain forms of income? What is the difference between getting income in cash and getting it by way of a free car, schools fees being paid, free rent, free mortgages, and so on? Why should one section of the community have to pay income tax in respect of all income and others not? The point has been made that employers pay the tax on fringe benefits. Then under the pay as you earn scheme, they pay tax on the ordinary income that is brought into the household by way of cash. They pay it and, of course, collect it from the employee. There is nothing to stop them from doing the same in this respect. So what it amounts to is a lot of rage, tumult and shouting over very little. It is hard to see why there is so much hubbub about it. We pay income tax, a tax whereby income is reduced in order to contribute to the upkeep of this country. After all we live in this country, whether in Queensland, Western Australia or elsewhere, and we take the benefits from it. We use the roads and enjoy the law and order which is maintained in the community. Why should we not contribute to that? Why should we not contribute by way of taxation? If some of us pay tax on the income we earn, why should we not all pay tax on income? If we all do that taxes can be reduced. As has been pointed out here today, that is exactly what will happen. From 1 December the tax rates will be reduced for everybody in the community. This year nobody will pay more than 55c in the dollar and next year more than 49c in the dollar. After 1 December if one is earning less than $35,000 but more than $25,000 one will pay 46c in the dollar and next year one will pay 40c in the dollar, where previously one paid 48c in the dollar. So everybody will benefit. We can only benefit if everybody pays his or her fair share. If people had done that over the years we would not now be in the situation we are in. That is really what it is all about. We are simply asking people to pay their fair share. Let us take as an example an ordinary working man who has taken from his pay an amount by way of pay as you earn tax-one cannot go into tax avoidance schemes if one is in the pay as you earn system-at the rate of 48c in the dollar on an income of between $28,000 and $35,000 or 46c in the dollar on an income between $19,500 and $28,000. If he had read the Sydney Morning Herald on 29 October this year he would have read that some of Australia's biggest and most profitable companies paid less than 5c in the dollar tax this year. Ordinary people who earn up to $12,500, who come home having worked hard for this country, for themselves, and to keep their families living in a decent style-humble though it may be-having read this would wonder why they should pay 25c in the dollar. They will see that the study looked at tax paid as a percentage of pre-tax profits for Australia's 150 top companies ranked by market capitalisation. They will see that John Elliott's Elders IXL Ltd paid 10.35 per cent. Senator McKiernan —He is the Liberal Treasurer. Senator COONEY —Yes. They will see that the Bond Corporation paid 13.95 per cent, and that George Herscu's Hooker Corporation paid 16.8 per cent-all less than they have to pay on their $12,500 a year. The article goes on: Although the company tax rate is 46c in the dollar, the Herald study shows that the top 150 companies, taken as a whole, pay tax at an average rate of just over 28c in the dollar in 1986. These same companies paid tax at the rate of 37.12c in the dollar in 1980. If those 150 companies had paid 46c in the dollar tax in 1986, the Government would have collected an extra $902 million-a significant sum given that we are talking about only 150 companies. So this Government says that something has to be done about this. We have to redistribute income to help the ordinary decent citizen in this country who has one car perhaps, and two or three children whom he is attempting to bring up and send on school excursions for which he has to pay, who wants a reasonable amount of food and decent clothes. He does not want much beyond that; his ambitions by necessity are fairly limited in material things-I do not speak of ambitions he has in other areas. He says: `What is this all about? Why should I have to pay all this tax while other people and companies who earn vastly more than I earn do not have this tax imposed on them? They do not pay anything like I have to pay'. Is that not conducive to a feeling of dissatisfaction, a feeling that the community is not hanging together as it should? Some people are doing very well and others are not because of the tax impost. He looks at this principle and asks why this income should not all bear the same rate of tax. He is told: `There is an exceptional case if you do this and an exceptional case if you do that, and because of these exceptional cases the general principle of fairness is thrown out the window'. Is that fair? The Opposition can bring up any tax it wants to-income tax, a tax on a property, a consumption tax, a tax on gifts or anything else-and find individual examples of how that tax hits hard. Income tax in many cases must hit hard, but the general principle, if there is to be a taxation system at all, must be based not on looking at the exceptions but on looking at the general thrust. The general thrust of the fringe benefits tax is simply that people who earn income, whether by way of cash or cash and other things-it does not matter how they earn it-ought to bear the same level of taxation. What is wrong with that as a principle? Why should the Opposition persistently raise exceptional cases that it thinks are hard and say: `This tax ought to go overboard'. People talk about housing on farms in the outback and say: `Isn't this outrageous that people who get free houses should have that counted as income?'. What about the ordinary worker in the city who has to pay rent? Why should he or she get income to pay that rent and not have that income taxed? It is extraordinary that by some magic waving of a wand money that is paid by way of remuneration is to be taxed, according to the Opposition, whereas remuneration paid in other ways ought not be. The other point is this: If there is to be an alternative to what the Government is doing-this has been brought out again and again by various Opposition speakers, and Senator Vigor raised this as well-what is it to be? The man who read the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday, 29 October 1986 might have also read the Daily Telegraph on 6 November to find this: There is anxiety in many senior Liberal minds that John Howard has not cleared up public confusion on the Opposition's tax policy . . . While the focus was on the Government and its tax policy, the pressure was lifted off Opposition leader John Howard to detail the Coalition's tax policy. But what is that policy? Senator Brownhill —It is going to give incentive for people who want to work and produce things for Australia. Senator COONEY —If that is so, why does the honourable senator not say it? Instead of shouting an interjection across the chamber, why does he not get up and give the Opposition's policy? Obviously, the Opposition has policies. Senator Watson said `We are going to abolish the Labor Government's fringe benefits tax', implying that the Opposition has a fringe benefits tax which it will not tell us about. It is no good the Opposition announcing its tax policy by interjection across the chamber. With great respect, if it wants to keep going that way, we are happy to do it that way; but we would like to know what the Opposition's tax policy is. The ordinary man or woman reading his or her newspaper would read: One of the other reasons they want to keep their policy under wraps is to avoid a lengthy period of criticism by the Government. I can understand the Opposition being apprehensive that when it puts its policy forward it will be very much subject to criticism. But, if there is to be genuine debate across the chamber and discussion so that the people of Australia can understand exactly what the various tax policies are, the Opposition should put its policy forward. When people take the initiative and go in for great reforms, as this Government has done, of course there will be criticism. An illustration of that is the Income Tax Assessment Act itself. It is a very thick Act because of the way income tax provisions have been modified over the years, and quite properly so. But at least this Government has taken the initiative. It is trying to do something for the country. It is trying to make the tax system fairer. But the Opposition has not, at any stage I can think of recently, put forward a policy in respect of which people can make a judgment and ask: `Is it a fair policy, or are we being asked to elect a government which will bring in a policy which will distort the taxation system the way it was distorted previously and, apparently, the way it is to be distorted in the future?'. The ordinary men and women reading the newspaper will say: `These companies are getting away with a lot. There is no policy on the part of the Opposition. We are left with the Government's policy which, in any event, brings down the rates at which we have to pay tax now and again next year'. They will see an economy which, because of the fairness with which the Government has approached the question of remuneration, has averaged a growth of 4 to 5 per cent over the last few years and people have had their real wages reduced. But in spite of that there is still an attempt by the Opposition to get rid of the fringe benefits tax; and, if the fringe benefits tax goes out, so do the tax cuts. That is what it is all about. That has not been denied by the other side. Honourable senators opposite have not indicated the machinery or mechanism by which there can be tax cuts and an abolition of the fringe benefits tax. The only conclusion is that, when honourable senators opposite proclaim the abolition of the fringe benefits tax, they are also saying that the tax cuts have to go. That is something that Senator McKiernan, this Government and I will not allow to happen. We will give the tax cuts on 1 December, and next year we will give more. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.05) —in reply-As usual, we have had an interesting debate on the fringe benefits tax, with the Australian Labor Party refusing to face up to facts. I suppose that Senator Barney Cooney, who has just resumed his seat, was typical of the whole debate from the Labor point of view. He echoed the sort of nonsense we heard from Senator Maguire. He said that the Labor senators were going to guarantee the tax cuts. The sad fact is that, if Mr Keating and the Government deliver the tax cuts in December and July next year, the average family man on average weekly earnings will still be paying more of his income in income tax than he was paying when this Government came to power. His marginal tax rate will be higher, and his total tax rate will be higher. This Government is taking in tax the most substantial share of the whole gross domestic product taken by any government in our history. Senator Maguire, who led for the Government in this debate, talked about the tax package and said that the fringe benefits tax can be defended as part of the tax package. That was very much the point Senator Cooney made. He said that this apparently indefensible tax is defensible if one looks at all the other tax changes the Government is making. All I can say in response to that in the brief time I have is that there is no taxpayer in Australia who does not understand that the tax burden under Labor has become heavier and that even if he gets the tax cuts that are promised he will still be paying heavier taxes than he was paying 3 1/2 or four years ago. It is all part of a confidence trick. A grossly complex tax is being imposed on charitable institutions, university colleges, school boarding houses, national trusts, youth hostels, youth workers and all sorts of people who are not engaged in tax rip-offs. All sorts of taxes are being imposed on the remote area industries of this country. As I said in opening this debate, 80 per cent of the fringe benefits tax being paid by Mount Isa Mines Ltd relates to benefits being paid to blue-collar workers employed by that company. The speakers in favour of this motion have put before the Senate a series of examples illustrating that it is the ordinary activities of business, commerce and charity which are being struck by this tax. The fact that the Government is trying to use the politics of envy to justify what it is doing is really reprehensible, but I suppose that we will see a lot of that between now and the next election. I simply warn Government senators that they are up against the sad reality that this tax is not a theory to the people of Australia any more; it is a practical, working burden. They know what the fringe benefits tax is like. They know the injustices it is wreaking on the Australian community. They will reject this Government, in part because of this tax imposition. What we stand for is lower taxes. We stand for less complex taxing. With our commitment to lower government expenditure, we will be able to deliver that. There is a difficult taxation situation under the Hawke Government because the Hawke Government is the biggest spending government in Australia's history. It is the biggest taxing government in Australia's history. In the view of the Opposition, the fringe benefits tax should be thrown out. We urge the passage of this motion. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Powell, J. N. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sanders, N. K. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Siddons, J. R. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Jones, G. N. Vigor, D. B. McClelland, Douglas Walsh, P. A. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller) Zakharov, A. O. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Alston, R. K. R. Evans, GarethWithers, R. G. Gietzelt, A. T. Baume, Peter Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(5.16) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. At the outset I would like to say that over a great deal of time since I have been in the Senate I have taken an interest in forestry matters. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment. Many years ago we had an inquiry into woodchipping around this country. We suggested standards for woodchipping companies. We have kept a watching brief on woodchipping in different States since that time. We were due to look at the situation once more in Eden, New South Wales, on 1 December but I now find that the Senate will sit on that day. That visit will have to be put off for a little longer. The forest industry is very important. It is worth about $3 billion annually to Australia, which is more than wheat or wool. Senator Tate —You have been reading the advertisements. Senator TOWNLEY —I certainly have. I have also been reading the letters in the Hobart Mercury over the last weeks. In the last couple of days, particularly, there have been quite a number that show just how interested a great number of people in Tasmania are in this very important matter. It is good to see that forest industries are starting to tell people just how important to the nation are these industries. Senator Sanders —They will not be in 10 years. You will have all the trees cut down. Senator TOWNLEY —I think that the honourable senator will speak in a moment. Why does he not wait for his turn? If one throws rocks at people one gets a few squeals, or, as my father used to say, if one throws rocks at dogs a few of them will yelp. I will not say that about anyone here but occasionally we hear many yelps and they remind me of what my father said. Many small communities throughout Tasmania basically live upon the growth of trees in forests. I am not for a moment saying that there should be an all out attack on the forests. Over the past few years there has been a gradual recognition that forests must be properly managed and looked at from an environmental impact point of view. There is also recognition from a lot of people that just like wheat, trees are a crop to be harvested. If one does not harvest them they die and they are of no value to anyone once that happens. The difference between wheat and trees is that trees take much longer to grow. Eucalypts take up to 80 years to grow on a cycle. The softwoods grow much more quickly. I am pleased to note in this report that the plantation of hardwoods, particularly in Tasmania, is on the increase. Hardwood plantations in Tasmania increased by approximately 2,800 hectares during 1984-85 and that was nearly all of Australia's plantation increase. In one part of the report the Council notes concern about the possible deterioration of domestic hardwood timber supplies and it is important that the people of Australia keep their eyes on this. I am pleased to see that the increase is occurring in Tasmania. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.21) —On page 28 of the report of the Australian Forestry Council which is before the Senate is a biennial report of the Forestry and Forest Products Industry Council, FAFPIC. Page 30 explains the future work program of FAFPIC, which includes the need for members to focus on public awareness issues `aimed at obtaining greater community acceptance of wood production as a legitimate land use'. That sounds all right. In the Australian Forest Industries Journal of August 1986 is the following statement: In January 1986 the Forestry and Forest Products Industry Council (FAFPIC) presented a major industry development plan to the Commonwealth Government. The positive response to the plan from both the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator John Button and the Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable John Kerin, has raised expectations that the forest industries may finally achieve the national recognition which the Council feels it deserves. This indicates that the Ministers, Senator John Button and Mr Kerin, are whole-heartedly behind FAFPIC. What is FAFPIC now doing? It is behind the anti-environmental, anti-conservationist advertising campaign which has been seen on television and in the newspapers. The Australian Financial Review of 30 April 1986 states: Forestry sector plans $1m media campaign. The forest and forest products industry is about to embark on a million-dollar media campaign to foster public awareness of the industry's role and need. An advertising agency has presented a campaign proposal to the Forestry and Forest Products Industry Council, which will launch the exercise with funds provided by the industry . . . We see now that a Government agency, FAFPIC, is actively involved in helping the woodchippers. How actively? The Forest Industries Campaign Association, which is the organisation which is actually running the campaign, according to its memorandum and articles of association is composed of the Chairman of FAFPIC and two members of FAFPIC, and the papers were witnessed by a public servant who is the Executive Officer of FAFPIC. So this departmental public servant and this body of the Government have been actively involved in a campaign the avowed purpose of which is to get open slather on all the forests in Australia. They are under the advice of people to denigrate the environmental movement at every turn, and their advertisements do this. One advertisement shows a conservationist chained to a tree and saying: `I don't care about jobs. I don't care about the future and all that'. Of course, that is utter rubbish. The conservation movement, as the forestry workers are increasingly aware, is the only movement interested in the future of trees and the jobs in the industry. The workers are coming to see that the environmentalists are working to protect their jobs and that the industry is interested only in short term profits. On Tuesday in the Senate I asked a question of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, about this issue. I have yet to receive an answer. After two days there is still no answer. It is obvious that the Government is very embarrassed by its involvement in this anti-conservationist campaign. This occurs at a time when the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, is trying to tell the nation that he is vitally interested in conservation, the Kakadu issue and Jackeys Marsh. It is ridiculous for Mr Hawke to claim that he is turning green when an official Government organisation is pumping out propaganda for the woodchippers. If Mr Hawke is really serious about redressing the environmental wrongs in this country he must end his Government's active support for the woodchippers' smear campaign. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(5.25) —I would like to refer to the Australian Forestry Council report and support what Senator Townley has said about the interests that the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment took in the forestry industry and in particular the woodchipping industry. The Committee inquired as a result of some, I believe, rather irresponsible clear felling that occurred in the Eden area a few years ago. Some 1,500 acres were clear felled for woodchip production. The Committee held an intensive inquiry into the whole environmental impact of such activities on the forest and the surrounding land. During that inquiry we discovered that the management planning of the various forestry commissions was changed. At Eden, for example, foresters decided that they should not clear fell such vast areas but that they should reduce their coup sizes and stagger them so that regeneration could occur in a responsibly managed way. I was pleased that the Senate Committee had that effect because obviously a Federal government has no right to dictate the management of forests within State boundaries and I thought the Senate Committee did a good job in that respect. It is very important-- Senator Watson —You made recommendations about export licences. Senator JESSOP —Yes, that is right. We did make recommendations with respect to woodchipping and said to the Federal Government that woodchipping material should be only waste material or material obtained from sylvicultural thinning techniques and that is-- Senator Collard —Not used for saw-logging. Senator JESSOP —No. I was pleased that that was adopted as well. We followed up this inquiry and we went to Manjimup to look at forestry operations following complaints that had been made by conservationists. We asked the conservationists to give us an itinerary and to point out their areas of concern. With the co-operation of the Forests Department of Western Australia we undertook a survey of the points of concern. I found it interesting that the foresters and conservationists, who normally are at loggerheads-if I can coin a phrase-with each other, suddenly became aware that they both had concerns about the way in which forests are managed. The foresters, on the one hand, admitted there had been bad management practice. They said they had sacked the sub-contractor involved. He had been instructed not to do it again. The conservationists, on the other hand, thought that it was amazing that foresters should be concerned about environmental issues related to their industry. After that exercise one of the foresters said: `I did not think I would ever walk through a forest with Mr Conacher, who is constantly attacking us in the Press'. Mr Conacher said: `I did not think we could ever get together with the foresters in the same forestry survey'. I think that this is a very important point to be made. Certainly we are all concerned about the degradation that can occur from indiscriminate forestry operations and we are concerned to maintain our natural forests but we also recognise that the forestry industry is the fifth largest in Australia and employs directly about 100,000 people and indirectly 200,000 people. Therefore, we have to make sure that responsible management occurs and that this industry continues to provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people in Australia. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.30) —I, too, would like to speak to the report of the Australian Forestry Council. It is very difficult to speak about a report such as this in a rational manner when we have heard an outburst such as that which Senator Sanders produced. In his usual way, I do not think that he said one thing that was even remotely accurate. He regularly states that the timber people have no interest in the future or in matters such as that. That is absolutely crazy, and we all know it is, but it is typical of what we can expect from him. What we must remember is that, if it were not for the people who are looking after the forests, there would probably be no forests. I would rather leave them in the hands of the professionals than in the hands of a group of amateurs who honestly do not care about employment opportunities, the livelihood of people, and so many other things. The report of the Forestry Council demonstrates what a group of professionals they are. They have very high professional standards. Their standards have improved considerably in the last few years through their own desire to have better conservation and a better operation. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, both in the Division of Forest Research and the Division of Wood Research, has done first class work. It has done outstanding work on a product it calls scrimber. The work the Division of Forest Research has done on improvement of species, pests, and on silviculture generally, is very good and quite outstanding. Private forestry is increasing in most of the States. Of course, there are problems in Australia at present. A traditional source of timber for over 100 years has been North America, but the oregon in North America has been entirely cut out on the first round and the sources of supply will now be considerably less. The Asian hardwood cycle is also likely to dry up in the next few years as much of those areas are cut out on the first round. It means that we will get timber only from our own forests or from New Zealand. One of the real problems with which the industry is left is the question of National Estate listings. Page 35 of the report states: Council AGREED that the Chairman should inform the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment of its concern over the apparent use of National Estate listings under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 by some parties seeking to prevent logging in production forest areas. Council NOTED that in so doing, reliance was being placed on public misconception that National Estate listing was equivalent to national park status. Of course, any red herring will do if one is not fussy about the truth. That is the sort of act with which we have had to contend. In my State, silviculture practices are very good. The Forest Practices Act is the best harvesting Act in Australia. It provides that there is to be a forest practices code and all harvesting must be done in accordance with the code. It has certainly made a great difference and an improvement. Softwood plantings now total 60,800 hectares and hardwood plantings total 12,000 hectares. These plantings are very significant. There are now more trees growing than are actually being harvested. We need to do more to try to encourage our forestry industry and what flows from it. The world will be looking for more and more timber of the types that we grow well. Provided that we concentrate on growing some of our native timbers rather than exotic timbers, I am sure we will be able to deliver a considerable amount of the world's wood supplies. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.34) —In speaking to the report of the Australian Forestry Council, I draw attention to page 12, which gives the situation report of my home State of Victoria. That part of the report notes that in Victoria the conservation movement is seeking a number of large new national parks in east Gippsland. The report states that the adoption of these proposals would lead to a substantial reduction in timber available to industry and would have significant social and economic implications. In that context, I wish to refer to reports that yesterday the final recommendations of the Land Conservation Council of Victoria on east Gippsland were made to the Victorian Government. It is disturbing to note that, while those final recommendations call for a new national park in the controversial Erinundra Plateau area, a new coastal park and other smaller parks, they still put at risk a substantial number of areas which are proposed for National Estate listing. If the Land Conservation Council's recommendations are accepted by the Victorian Government, these areas would be opened up for logging and woodchipping. East Gippsland, as the Australian Conservation Foundation noted in its response to the Land Conservation Council's recommendations, forms the last major forest area in south-east Australia which is still uncommitted to woodchipping. Obviously, the push by the giant Japanese woodchipper, Harris-Daishowa, to gain access to more of the south-eastern Australian area is having an impact. This is of deep concern. I have recently travelled in the area and I am conscious of the problems in that local community. There is an apparent conflict in people's minds, and some of that conflict has been mentioned today by other speakers on this paper. There seems to be an either/or attitude-either we can preserve substantial areas, particularly of native forests, which are currently untouched, or we can log them, carry out woodchipping and create jobs. That is not really an attitude which should be adopted. When I travelled in that area I was encouraged to find that the local community has formed an east Gippsland economic and employment development committee. It is the sort of local committee, with the sort of co-operation between people working in the timber industry, people living in the area and people concerned about the retention of our natural heritage, which should be able to come up with innovative suggestions and ideas for continuing employment along with the preservation of our natural heritage. A balanced solution could be arrived at so that there would be no threat to areas such as the Erinundra Plateau, which the Victorian Herbarium has classified as of international botanical significance. It is also an area of national zoological significance, and it is on the interim National Estate list. The recommendations leave large areas in east Gippsland open to logging in the coastal range and in the Brodribb River catchment. In addition, sections which encompassed previous recommendations for Erinundra and Rodger River national parks have been excised for logging. That either/or approach has led to some totally inappropriate recommendations. Significant stands of mature mountain ash will be able to be clear felled. Yet I am informed that the Rodger River excision, under these recommendations, will provide timber for only two weeks milling-two weeks of employment-every 150 years. It seems to me to be a quite inappropriate decision. As I know from my travels and discussions in that area, and as we know from the operations of the woodchip industry, woodchipping does devour high quality logs in order to be economical. The proposal is not simply to use waste for chipping in east Gippsland. Millers in the area have told me that that is just not economical. Just over a week ago, when it looked as though the Federal Government would take a stand on half of the forests of Tasmania, I called for firm action on behalf of Victoria's forests, particularly those in east Gippsland. Today I join the Australian Conservation Foundation in calling, as it has, on the Federal Government to use all its power to protect these areas. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.39) —In speaking to the summary of resolutions and recommendations of the twenty-third meeting of the Australian Forestry Council, it should be recognised that if any group of people wants to preserve our forests, it is the foresters and those associated with the industry. Yet if one listens to some of the remarks that have been made today, particularly by Senator Sanders, one would think that the whole forestry industry would be wiped out in a very short time. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Senator Townley said in his contribution to the debate, it is like harvesting a crop, but instead of having a six- 12-monthly cycle, as is the case with some grain crops, one is looking at a 60, 80 or 100-year cycle. We are harvesting the forests in order to provide for our needs. At the same time we are providing jobs and, in some cases such as the woodchipping industry, we are gaining export earnings. For those who are interested in this area and who wish to study it, it is a quite good exercise to go to some of the areas that are being either logged for saw logs, logged for woodchipping, or clear felled-the type of country dictates what kind of harvesting will take place-and talk to the foresters and see their management plans. There is no doubt that, as with the mining industry, we have learnt a tremendous amount over the last few years on how to handle and harvest our forests on a sustainable yield basis and maintain them for future generations. Foresters have worked with various bodies, such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, on the animal life of forests-their habits, where they congregate and move around. Having learnt that they have excised those areas from harvesting and possible damage in any future management plans. Watercourses are protected because of the sedimentation that can occur. It is a very interesting exercise which should be done by all those interested in forestry who wish to learn and see what is being done in our large forests. It is interesting to note that Australia's domestic consumption of timber products was just under 4 1/4 million cubic metres in 1985-86. Interestingly, over 1 1/4 million cubic metres of that was imported and, unfortunately, a lot of it is imported from countries which are not nearly as good in their management plans as we are in Australia. I think there is a lesson in that for those who wish to halt all our forestry and timber operations. Senator Sanders referred to the campaign that is going on as an anti-conservation campaign. I do not see it as an anti-conservation campaign, as some people in the community do, but rather as an educative process for the forestry industries so that the people who do not understand or have the opportunity that we have to move around the forestry or timber industries might learn what it is all about and might learn that our timber industry is completely reliant on a sustainable yield basis. It is necessary for all those in the industry, for this generation and, more importantly, for future generations, that good management plans be in place and be strictly adhered to. That is currently what is happening. I think the foresters in all our States have every right to be proud not only of what they have learnt but also of the fact that they have put what they have learnt into operation and these management plans are in place and thus the flora and fauna associated with our forests are protected for now and for future generations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.43) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. We come now to the very important annual report for 1985-86 on the Town Campers Assistance Program. It is for the period from May last year to June this year. It is a report that could bring about considerable debate. Because the time allowed for the discussion on Government Papers has almost expired-I think we have three minutes to go-and because we are coming to the latter stages of the Budget sittings and it is anticipated that there will be no more General Business debates this sitting, this debate will not come forward until the autumn sittings. Senator Tate —You can speak in the adjournment debate. Senator KILGARIFF —I think this report is so important that it wants more than just a mention in an adjournment debate. I note that there are honourable senators opposite who are very interested in this report and who believe that it covers an important matter. Although it is a couple of months away, I hope that this report will be brought forward again in February and debated at length because, as I have said before, it covers a very important matter. The preparation of the report was brought about by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. The interesting thing which opens up the whole debate is that the Committee has adopted the following definition of `town campers': Any group of Aboriginals living at identified camp sites near or within towns or cities which form part of the socio-cultural structure of the towns and cities but which have a lifestyle that does not conform to that of the majority of non-aboriginal residents and are not provided with essential services and housing on a basis comparable to the rest of the community. This definition emanated from a report in 1982. The problems are still immense. Between 1982 and 1986 so many things have happened that I think it would be of considerable interest for the honourable senators who are interested in this matter to review what has happened over the last four years and where the problems now stand. My time has almost expired, so I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —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 TATE(Tasmania) —I present the eighteenth report of 1986 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Australia Card Bill 1986, the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Transfers of Marketable Securities) Bill 1986, the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1986, the Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment Bill 1986, the Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1986, the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 1986, the Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill 1986, the Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Bill 1986, and the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 18, Dated 19 November 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Coates: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.49) —I rise to say a few words on the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority Act. I have recently become a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I commend the report to the Senate. I believe that it should be considered in some detail because it is part of a general program of looking at late and qualified reports which come to this Parliament. This report concerns the 1983-84 annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority. During the last few years this Authority has not been without controversy. The excuses given for the report being late were that it took the Authority from July to December 1984 to prepare a draft report and that the Department of Territories required a decision from the Minister to be made on the transfer of moneys to the Australian Capital Territory Totalizator Agency Board operations revenue accounts. Apparently this operation took until May 1985. The interesting point about this is that the Department claimed that the Christmas break and the absence on leave of key departmental officers during December 1984 and January 1985 were the main reasons for this delay. That does not explain the months of February, March and April and there does not appear to be any satisfactory explanation for the extra three months which do not fit in with the excuse that was given. Qualification of the financial statements were based on the fact that ACT-TAB funds were invested in accepted bills of exchange and that this was in contravention of the provisions of the Betting (Totalizator Agency) Ordinance 1975. The funds that were credited to the poker machine trust account were invested when no power to carry out such investment was available under the Poker Machine Control Ordinance. It was claimed by the legal section of the Department of Territories that because things were not expressly forbidden they could be done and this is detailed on page 11 of the report. This is a very interesting excuse and it seems to be typical of the attitude that prevails when there is little or no oversight of a given department. Advice should have been sought from the Attorney-General's Department. Page 12 of the report indicates that both the Auditor-General's Office and the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations strongly support that view. We look forward to improvements. I understand that the 1985-86 report is on time. A couple of incidental matters happened during this year. Last year the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority supported an applicant for a public broadcasting station, 2SSS FM-and the station is now on air with sporting and music format. There was quite a bit of controversy in the Senate over this station. At that stage the Authority seemed to take a gambling attitude towards the funds in its care and its responsibilities. However, this is not dealt with in the report. Senator Coates —It was not an issue under examination. Senator VIGOR —It was not an issue that was canvassed at all but I believe that the Authority has entered into various proposals. I also note that in Estimates committee hearings the Gaming and Liquor Authority told us that the bulk of wine sales in the Australian Capital Territory is at the lower end of the price scale and that the Authority does not expect dollar sales figures to decline as a result of the increased sales tax. The Authority was not asked any questions concerning the contents of this report in the Estimates committees. I commend the Committee for its work in this area. I understand that the Committee will be looking very closely at reports which transgress the various timing rules for presentation and which are qualified by the Auditor-General. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Colston: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.56) —Last week when I spoke to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts I foreshadowed that, after consultations with colleagues, today I would move an amendment to the motion that is before us that the Senate take note of this report. Accordingly, I now move: At end of motion, add, `and (a) agrees with the Committee's conclusion that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's approach to the Committee's inquiry was incorrect and that the ABC and any summoned officers of the ABC should have answered the Committee's questions; (b) asserts that the ABC and any other witnesses before Senate committees have an obligation to co-operate and to answer questions within the terms of reference of Senate standing committees and Senate Estimates committees alike; and (c) requests the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts to consider, in the light of its own evidence and the answers subsequently given by the ABC to Senate Estimates committees, whether further investigation is required.' In speaking briefly to the amendment, I bring to the attention of the Senate that last week in my presentation to the debate on this report I outlined the difficulty that had arisen out of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's failure to be accountable to parliament. I reiterated the principle we all support, that is, that the ABC and statutory authorities set up under legislation from this Parliament and receiving public money by decision of this Parliament should not only be accountable but also be seen to be accountable to parliament. Three matters that summarise the ABC's position can be referred to briefly. In its written submission to the Committee's inquiry the ABC set out its approach in the following sentence: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 guarantees the editorial independence of the Corporation's program services. The ABC holds its power to make programming decisions as a trust on behalf of the people of Australia, for which it is accountable to Parliament, but in which by law and convention neither the Government nor Parliament seeks to intervene. I reject that statement; I think it is untenable because the ABC is saying: We want to be accountable in theory but not in practice. The claim is made that such accountability cannot be required by either law or convention. Neither is true. Certainly the Senate Committee does not hold to the ABC's view and a remedy to the impasse with which the ABC presented the Committee needs to be found. It is my contention and the contention of many honourable senators whom I have consulted along with the Chairman of the Committee that the amendment that is before us puts this matter into a clear light and provides a clear solution. I note that the Committee found that the ABC thought that it could pick and choose which parliamentary committee it would be accountable to. The ABC tried to say to us: `We are quite ready to give answers to an Estimates committee of the Senate but we will not give answers to a standing committee of the Senate'. The amendment that is before us clearly asserts the view of all of us in the Senate that witnesses from statutory authorities who appear before the Senate committees-and, indeed, the ABC witnesses in this context-cannot make any distinction and cannot pick and choose but must be answerable to and must co-operate in a similar way with Senate committees of all kinds. The ABC, in the statement I have quoted from its submission, tried to maintain its case for protection from accountability on the grounds of an assertion that Parliament could not inquire into the safe area of programming decisions. I agree that the Parliament, and I trust the Government, should not intrude into this area. Certainly, the Liberals when in government did not seek to interfere with the programming decisions of the ABC. It would be wrong for politicians to say that the ABC cannot put on an evening news because it offends them or that it cannot put on a Four Corners program because it contains material that is not to their political liking. The principle of not interfering with programming decisions is quite sound. But it is entirely wrong for the ABC, or any other statutory authority, to apply that protection to all of the decisions that it makes. It is quite wrong for it to apply that principle to the grey area between the protected area and the fully accountable area. It is on the question of where that line should be drawn that we very much disagree with the ABC in this case. I believe, and the Senate Committee believes, that the ABC should be fully accountable to the Parliament in terms of the general decisions it makes in respect of services and finance. I believe it is wrong for the ABC to try to evade accountability in respect of its financial and general service decisions on the spurious ground that these in fact amount to program decisions. The Senate Committee was in no doubt that this was the case and that the impasse that the ABC had presented us with in the conduct of this inquiry could be, and in the view of many ought to be, regarded as contempt of the Senate. In the amendment that is before us I am not seeking to suggest anything with regard to contempt. In my view, any such matters that arise in the future should be referred to the Privileges Committee. In order to clarify this matter, we sought an opinion from the Attorney-General's Department on the legal grounds concerning these issues. The Attorney-General's Department wrote two letters on this matter which are appended to the report. I quote from the Attorney-General's findings: c . . . the ABC, through its representatives, cannot lawfully refuse to answer questions put to it by the Education and Arts Committee . . . The Committee may refer refusal by a witness to answer questions within the Committee's terms of reference to the Senate and the Senate may treat that refusal as a contempt. Moreover, the Attorney-General's opinion on the position of the ABC as a statutory authority is as follows: The thrust of the ABC's submission, as I understand it, is that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 gives the ABC a substantial measure of independence, including independence in relation to programming decisions. If the argument be that, as a consequence of the independence conferred on the ABC by statute, the ABC is as a matter of law beyond the reach of parliamentary scrutiny, then the argument is in my view misconceived. The provisions on which the ABC relies relate to the relationship between the ABC and the executive government. The powers of the Parliament to enquire into a matter, and to require information for that purpose, do not depend upon that matter being within the control of the executive government . . . it is in my view abundantly clear that statutory provisions freeing an authority from day to day ministerial direction in no way put that authority beyond the reach of parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in the context of a parliamentary inquiry into the administration and execution of that authority's constituting legalisation. The Senate has itself expressed a similar view . . . There is no doubt in the Senate Committee's mind that there should have been accountability in respect of the matters raised with the ABC. To clarify this matter ultimately, I commend the amendment to the Senate and I look to all senators from all parties to support it. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(6.07) —Before commenting on the motion and the amendment before the Senate, I remind the Senate that I spoke to the substantive motion on 17 September this year. The record of my remarks commences at page 576 of the daily Hansard. The record of Senator Teague's earlier statements commence at page 2038. I support the amendment moved by Senator Teague. I would like to examine certain aspects of that amendment, which states that the Senate: (a) agrees with the Committee's conclusion that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's approach to the Committee's inquiry was incorrect . . . In part, the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, at page 67 of its report to the Senate, stated: . . . the Committee reports that it considers the ABC's approach to the Committee's inquiry was incorrect . . . What exactly was the approach of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation? Basically the ABC refused to co-operate with the Senate Committee. It refused to answer questions and, if I may be permitted to say so, it treated the Committee with the utmost contempt. For example, after refusing to supply certain factual information to the Committee at a public hearing in Brisbane, the ABC a few days later took out a half-page advertisement in the Courier-Mail, outlining the information which the Committee had requested. In addition, it readily supplied a Senate Estimates committee with information it had refused to supply to the Senate Standing Committee. The amendment then states: . . . and that the ABC and any summoned officers for the ABC should have answered the Committee's questions; This is mentioned on page 67 of the report which states, in part: . . . that the ABC should answer the questions which the Committee asks on behalf of the Senate. In the report it is noted that, when the Committee summoned witnesses, the witnesses refused to answer the Committee's questions, principally on the grounds that they were before the Committee as private citizens, not as employees of the ABC. The Committee regarded this argument to be quite spurious and the amendment states that those officers should have answered the questions put to them. The amendment moved by Senator Teague then states: (b) asserts that the ABC and any other witnesses to Senate Committees have an obligation to co-operate and to answer questions within the terms of reference of Senate Standing Committees and Senate Estimates Committees alike; In this respect I draw the attention of the Senate to pages 99 and 100 of the report. This matter was mentioned just a short time ago by Senator Teague. An opinion from the Attorney-General's Department states quite clearly that the Committee's inquiry was within the terms of reference of the Committee. The final paragraph of the amendment states: (c) requests the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts to consider in the light of its own evidence and the answers subsequently given by the ABC to Senate Estimates Committees whether further investigation is required. This part of the amendment refers to information provided at an Estimates committee hearing after the information had been withheld from the Standing Committee. If this amendment is passed, as I consider it should be, the Standing Committee will consider the evidence now available and determine whether further investigation is required. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That General Business Orders of the Day relating to the consideration of Committee reports pursuant to Sessional Order be not further proceeded with this day. 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 Ryan) read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Mr President, on 25 September 1986 the Prime Minister announced a range of decisions taken by the Government to give effect to our commitment to improve the efficiency of the public sector. This Bill implements those decisions that require amendment of legislation-in particular amendment of the Public Service Act and repeal of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act. Mr President, from the beginning of this Government's term in office we recognised that there were substantial barriers to productivity and efficiency in many industries because of inefficient work and management practices. Those barriers had built up and become ingrained over many years and would not be changed overnight. We recognised that change was vital if we were to maximise our economic potential. Consequently, agreements to address such practices formed an integral part of proposals to restructure the steel industry, the heavy engineering industry, the motor vehicle industry, the shipbuilding industry, and most recently the ship repair industry. The need to address inefficient work and management practices was agreed by both business and union representatives at the work practices meeting convened by the Federal Government. This meeting was a major initiative and the resultant agreement was a vital step forward in tripartite co-operation to address inefficient practices and improve productivity. The Government is therefore giving a lead to changing work practices in the private sector. It is however, equally determined that its own house should be in order. This Bill is part of that process. Taken together with this Government's Public Service reform legislation passed in 1984, this amounts to the most substantial amendment of Public Service employment legislation since the introduction of the present Act in 1922. The most significant areas of change in the current legislation are- revised redeployment and retirement provisions in circumstances of excess officers, inefficiency invalidity and loss of essential qualifications, and changes to the promotion and the promotion appeals system. In addition many other amendments are made consistent with the Government's desire to simplify and streamline a range of personnel processes. There is a common thread to these changes-increased efficiency and better management. The Government expects its managers to manage. It is establishing the framework within which that can take place. Turning first to the tenure of public servants. This Bill repeals the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979. As the Prime Minister said in his statement, this Act has not provided a satisfactory basis for the redeployment and retirement of staff. In its place, this Bill inserts new provisions in the Public Service Act which provide for circumstances of excess staff, inefficiency, invalidity or loss of essential qualifications. Surplus Staff The Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act has not provided an efficient or satisfactory mechanism for dealing with surplus staff. The processes of the Act are extremely complex; it does not provide for an effective voluntary retrenchment scheme; it provides too many stages of appeal; and its potential for providing a Commonwealth employment-wide redeployment system has not been realised. Further its processes are extremely time consuming and it can take up to two years to finalise a surplus staff situation under the CE (RR) Act Award. The Government has decided to simplify and speed up the processes of dealing with surplus staff. Detailed procedures have been kept out of the new Public Service Act. Negotiations will take place with the unions to obtain a new redeployment and retirement award to apply to all public servants to provide common consultation, notice and benefit provisions. When a potential redundancy arises the Secretary of a Department will notify the relevant unions and the Board. After consultation with the unions, where redeployment prospects are poor, and where the Board approves, staff will be eligible for lump sum termination benefits if they agree to voluntary retrenchment. Voluntary retrenchment, where necessary will be able to be offered one month after the unions have been provided with the relevant facts. A voluntary retrenchment payment of 2 weeks' for each year of service with a minimum of 4 weeks' and a maximum of 48 weeks' pay, plus 4 weeks notice of payment in lieu is proposed. Staff will be given one month to elect to take retrenchment. Using this approach, where redundancies are unavoidable, the aim will be to have voluntary retirements achieved within 2 months. Secretaries and the Public Service Board will continue to accept an obligation to take reasonable action to find alternative suitable employment in the Service, before exercising the power to involuntarily retrench or reduce an officer's classification. In these circumstances, the current income maintenance periods of 6 or 12 months will be retained, beginning from the date of the offer of voluntary retrenchment, that is at least 2 months earlier than the current processes. As an essential protection against arbitrary or capricious action by management there will be in the Public Service Act a right of appeal against involuntary retrenchment or reduction in classification to a tri-partite Redeployment and Retirement Appeal Committee established by the Merit Protection and Review Agency. Inefficient Staff The repeal of the Redeployment and Retirement Act and the substitution of new streamlined provisions in the Public Service Act will have a substantial effect on management's ability to deal with inefficient staff. The Government acknowledges that most public servants are conscientious, hard working and efficient. However, there are exceptions, as there must be in any big organisation. As the Prime Minister said in his Ministerial Statement, the Government expects the power given to Departmental Secretaries in respect of non-performing staff to be used in appropriate circumstances. Poor performers will be given a formal warning in writing and a 3 month period in which to reach the necessary standard. If they do not improve, the Secretary on the advice of an Assessment Committee will be able to reduce them to a lower level or to retire them. The officer will have one month's notice of redeployment to a lower level or retirement and a right to appeal to a Redeployment and Retirement Appeal Committee established by the Merit Protection and Review Agency. The new measures are markedly different from those under the previous arrangements which provided for a multiplicity of appeals and a requirement for the Public Service Board to attempt to redeploy inefficient staff. The new provisions will be a significant spur to efficient performance. Promotions and Appeals Mr President, I turn now to the promotion and promotions appeals system. The Government is firmly committed to promotion solely on the basis of merit. The Public Service is justifiably proud of the absence of cronyism from its ranks. There is no place for patronage, favouritism or discrimination. This Bill strengthens and extends the existing prohibitions on patronage, favouritism and discrimination. Section 33 of the Act will state categorically that powers are to be exercised without patronage, favouritism or discrimination. The disciplinary provisions will be amended to make express reference to the fact that patronage, favouritism or discrimination amount to misconduct and render officers liable to disciplinary action. The Bill amends the definition of efficiency for promotion decisions. It will be broadened to permit Secretaries of Departments to consider the potential for future career development of applicants and their capability to perform a variety of jobs at the same level as well as their suitability for the particular vacancy. This will lead to more realistic selection decisions and more flexible staffing. Whilst the present promotion and appeal system is generally providing good results, it is far too expensive and time consuming. When an appeal is involved it is estimated that, on average, it takes 36 weeks to fill a vacancy. Measures must be taken to reduce the costs and time involved when making promotions. This Bill and associated regulations will exclude appeals against promotions to positions above Clerical Administrative Class 8 and equivalent grades in other occupations. These positions are managerial, senior technical and professional in nature. This is already recognised by the cut-off of eligibility for over-time payments above this level. In such cases it is not appropriate for an external body such as the Promotion Appeal Committee to be substituting its view for that of departmental management as to who is best suited to do the job. However, as a protection against improper selection practices, the Merit Protection and Review Agency will be able to recommend to the Departmental Secretary that a promotion be cancelled if an unsuccessful applicant can establish, to its satisfaction, that the promotion decision was affected by patronage, favouritism or discrimination or that there was a serious defect in the selection process, and that it is unreasonable for the promotion to stand. Other significant changes to the promotion appeal system include the reduction of the appeal period and the limitation of the right to appeal to original applicants. The Government sees the increased use of Joint Selection Committees as making a significant contribution to reducing the costs of selection processes, particularly where bulk promotions are concerned. The legislation will be amended to introduce a special category of management-initiated Joint Selection Committees. After consultation with the unions, the Board will notify in the Gazette the circumstances in which these Committees may be used. The Committees will comprise a Convenor nominated by the Merit Protection and Review Agency, a nominee of the Department and, if nominated within a prescribed period, a nominee of the relevant union. If no union nomination is forthcoming the Committee will nevertheless be able to proceed. However, due to the consultation with the unions it is expected that there will be full co-operation during the trial period of 12 months. Where the Secretary accepts the unanimous advice of a Joint Selection Committee, the promotion will not be subject to appeal. The Government would expect these procedures to be used in bulk selection situations in agreed areas such as the Tax Office, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Social Security where significant numbers of vacancies at the same level are to be filled simultaneously. It is expected that, together with revised guidelines on selections, these changes to the promotion and appeal systems will significantly reduce the time taken to fill positions and the number and cost of appeals. This must lead to a more responsive and efficient Service. Mr President, I now wish to mention some of the other more important features of the Bill. The Bill includes a number of changes to the disciplinary provisions. This aims at reducing unnecessary procedural steps, providing more relevant penalties and removing costly appeals against minor disciplinary actions. There are also a number of amendments designed to permit the devolution of casework from the Public Service Board to Departments. Over the years the Board has progressively delegated many of its functions; this is a continuation of that process. It is fundamental to the aim of providing managers with the power to manage. A range of other delegations will be implemented by administrative action by the Public Service Board. As mentioned in the Prime Minister's Statement, many of the Government's decisions will be implemented by subordinate legislation or other administrative action. Regulations are currently being drafted to simplify selection procedures for temporary higher duties by allowing departments to select the most suitable officer available, having regard to operational requirements and abolishing appeals against such selections, unless the period of acting extends beyond 3 months. These regulations are not dependent upon legislation and it is expected that they will be made as soon as possible. Arrangements are already in hand to begin the review by the Public Service Board of flextime. Honourable senators will also recall the Prime Minister's announcement of the establishment of an efficiency scrutiny unit to be headed by Mr David Block, AO and the announcement of a number of other measures to enhance financial efficiency. The efficiency scrutiny unit is expected to be up and running early in the new year and early action is being taken to implement the decisions announced on financial management. Financial Impact It is not possible precisely to quantify the financial savings that will flow from the passage and implementation of this Bill. Major savings will be derived from more efficient personnel practices generally. In particular there will be savings from a more streamlined promotion and appeal system, the removal of appeals above Class 9 and the increased use of Joint Selection Committees. More efficient processes for handling surplus staff situations and the significant changes relating to the retirement of inefficient staff will also be a source of significant long-term savings for the Government. Mr President, this Government has done more than any of its predecessors to reform the Public Service to maximise its efficiency and effectiveness and to improve the quality of services provided to the Government and the community. This Bill makes further significant changes towards that same end. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I present the annual report of the Australian Audit Office for 1985-86. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, I present a report on the adequacy of quarantine in the Torres Strait area, dated October 1986, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ZAKHAROV —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The report concerns the adequacy of quarantine in the Torres Strait area and, in particular, the risk of the entry to Australia of exotic animal and plant diseases via the Torres Strait. As a result of its inquiry, which included a visit to Cape York Peninsula and a number of Torres Strait islands, and a hearing on Thursday Island, the Committee has made a number of recommendations which I hope honourable senators will study and discuss at a later date. I thank the members of the Committee for their co-operation, and the staff of the secretariat, particularly Peter Roberts and Mary Louise Willheim, for their untiring assistance. I also thank the leaders and members of the Aboriginal and Islander communities who made our visit to the Straits pleasurable as well as informative. I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- On behalf of the Members of the Standing Committee on National Resources, it gives me pleasure to table the Committee's report on the adequacy of quarantine in the Torres Strait area. The Committee's interest in quarantine goes back to 1978, when it undertook an inquiry on the adequacy of quarantine and other control measures to protect Australia's pastoral industries from the introduction and spread of exotic livestock and plant diseases. During that inquiry, the Committee became aware of the possible introduction of exotic diseases from Indonesia and Papua New Guinea into mainland Australia, and made recommendations for the strengthening of quarantine in the Torres Strait. The Committee maintained an interest in quarantine in the area and it noted the Government's response to the report in 1980. In 1985 the Committee received representations from Mr K. Potter and Mr W. Toomer relating to claims of deficiencies in the quarantine system, and the circumstances relating to Mr Toomer's retirement from the Commonwealth Public Service on medical grounds. The Committee gave serious consideration to these representations and wrote to the Minister assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, requesting that consideration to a re-examination of the issues relating to Mr Toomer's retirement be given. In his reply Senator Walsh stated that he had re-examined the issues involved and had reached the conclusion that no worthwhile purpose would be achieved in any such examination. The Committee believes it has no further role in this matter. The Committee sought a briefing from the Department of Primary Industry to clarify the quarantine situation, and decided that, although a number of its recommendations had been implemented, and the Committee's concerns were generally being met, the Torres Strait remained a high risk area and an inquiry which would look at the issues in more detail was clearly warranted. In May 1985 the Senate agreed to refer the matter to the Committee. Early in the inquiry the Committee visited Cape York Peninsula and the Torres Strait Islands. Stops were made at Weipa, the former Heathlands cattle station (north east of Weipa), Bamaga at the tip of Cape York Peninsula, Badu, Saibai, Yorke, Horn and Thursday Islands. The Committee met with local Aboriginal and Islander groups explaining the purpose of its visit at each place and inviting comments and questions relating to quarantine. The Committee was impressed overall by the co-operation and courtesy of the Islander and Aboriginal communities, with their appreciation of their responsibilities in relation to quarantine requirements and their willingness to undertake these responsibilities. The Committee found agreement within the Island communities that quarantine training programs should be set up for Islanders and recommends accordingly. While it is difficult to associate these little known, idyllic islands with the spread of exotic disease, it is surprising, given the proximity of Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya to the Islands, that more exotic animal and plant diseases have not already reached mainland Australia via the Strait. Saibai Island, for example, is approximately 4 kilometres from Papua New Guinea and animals can cross at low tide. Papua New Guineans frequently visit Island communities and have a long history of trading and ceremonial associations with the Islanders. Traditional movement of people in the area has occurred from early times. Ceremonies and celebrations in both countries are attended by both Islanders and Papua New Guineans. They involve the use of traditional dress, including feather head dress, beads made from seeds and other items which could pose a quarantine threat. Pigs and fruit consumed at these ceremonies could also pose a serious quarantine threat. The use of outboard motor boats has increased mobility and the quarantine risk has grown accordingly. Ships from Asia use the waters of the Torres Strait as a major international shipping lane, and refuse from these vessels, and animals and plants carried on board, could also constitute a grave quarantine risk. Conditions in the area are ideal for the introduction of potential virus sources. A recent factor affecting the operation of quarantine in the area is the Torres Strait Treaty ratified in 1985. The Treaty establishes a Protected Zone for the preservation of the traditional way of life of Islanders and Papua New Guineans. Amongst other things the Protected Zone enables considerable freedom of movement between the Islands and Papua New Guinea. Customs, immigration, quarantine and health procedures are to be applied in a way that will not hinder the movement of traditional inhabitants or performance of traditional activities. Special quarantine arrangements have been made, including two new quarantine zones and some exemptions from normal quarantine of items for use in traditional ceremonies. The Committee initially held some concerns about these new measures. While the new quarantine zones delineated the area more precisely for quarantine control, the boundaries of these zones need to be understood and respected by traditional inhabitants and visitors. The exemptions of specific items for use in traditional ceremonies could create a quarantine risk. Quarantine awareness programs for Islanders have been organised, for example a regular radio program and bilingual leaflets, and in time new initiatives will be undertaken to inform visitors of quarantine areas in the Strait. In the final analysis, the Committee concludes that the effects of the Treaty cannot be assessed for some time and recommends that a review of the quarantine provisions of the Treaty should be undertaken in four years. In the meantime it advocates an assessment of staff resources, so that any increased work load can be offset. The Committee also proposes the exemptions relating to traditional items should be kept under review, and items removed if they pose an unacceptable risk. The Committee gave serious consideration to the infestation risk in Australia of animal diseases, in particular Screw-worm fly and Newcastle disease. Screw-worm fly is established in the Papuan swamplands adjacent to the Torres Strait and can infest all warm blooded animals including humans. It is a major threat to Australia's cattle and sheep industry. Programs have been implemented for the detection of the fly, and the prevention of its southward progression, should it become established on the mainland. The Queensland government proposes to establish a Livestock Free Zone at the northern tip of Cape York Peninsula, intended to control movement of stock and feral animals further south. In addition, a contingency plan involving the production of sterile screw-worm flies in Papua New Guinea should eliminate the fly in the event of an outbreak. The Committee believes these programs are sound and that they should continue. To ensure the continued viability of these programs however, the Committee takes the view that the detection (or monitoring) program and the sterile Screw-worm fly production program should be assessed. Newcastle Disease can affect domestic poultry and free flying birds and poses a serious threat to the poultry industry in Papua New Guinea and Australia. It is endemic in most major centres in Irian Jaya and there is considerable fear that Newcastle Disease will spread to PNG. If that occurs the threat to Australia would be particularly serious. A number of responses have been made to the possible introduction of the disease. These include scientific studies, establishment of flocks of birds at Bamaga which would exhibit symptoms of the disease very quickly, prohibition of movement of poultry, production of vaccine, and regulations for the importation of avian material. Papua New Guinea has also taken preventive and monitoring measures. The Committee considered these programs appropriate and endorsed their continuation. Exotic plant and pest diseases from Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya have been detected in the area. For example, Citrus canker on Thursday Island and Black Sigatoka, a banana disease, discovered on Murray, Badu, Moa, Thursday Islands and Bamaga in 1981 and on Horn Island in 1984. Citrus Canker is probably the most serious threat to the citrus industry. It was discovered on Thursday Island in 1984, an eradication program was undertaken and the disease has not recurred. Quarantine measures are in force to prevent citrus plants from entering mainland Australia. Similar success has not been achieved with Black Sigatoka. The infected plants were destroyed, but the disease broke out again in Bamaga in 1984. The unsuccessful eradication program was abandoned and quarantine restrictions have been imposed. Banana plants cannot be brought from the Islands into Australia or moved south from the Bamaga area. The reason for the failure of the Black Sigatoka eradication program has not been determined and the Committee recommends that plant quarantine measures in the Torres Strait should be reviewed. There were a number of other areas of specific concern to the Committee. The Committee received evidence that live deer are being taken from Prince of Wales Island to mainland Australia, without quarantine checks. These deer could be infested with Screw-worm fly. The Committee recommends an extension of quarantine to that island. Quarantine legislation has not kept pace with the creation of the Protected Zone and quarantine officers have no power to search vessels coming out of that area. The Committee regarded this as a serious shortcoming and advocated amendment of the Quarantine Act accordingly. Co-operation is a vital element of quarantine efficiency. In this regard co-operation between Australia, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia is of great importance. The Committee understands that the Tripartite Committee on Animal Health and Quarantine has not met since 1982, and that, as a result, studies of certain diseases, including Screw-worm fly, have not been undertaken. The Committee regrets this situation and proposes that Australia take the initiative and suggest a meeting should be held as soon as possible. The Committee considers the movement of refugees across the Irian Jayan border into PNG of concern to quarantine. Many exotic diseases are endemic in Irian Jaya, in particular Newcastle Disease. Given the village lifestyle of people in the area, with dependence on pigs, fowls and other animals and the ease with which residents of each country can cross the border, there is grave risk of the spread of animal and plant disease. The Committee sees a need for the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to liaise closely with quarantine officers on the situation. A quarantine system is only as effective as its enforcement and the Committee is concerned to ensure an acceptable level of human and financial resources is maintained. In this regard the Committee sees a need not only for adequate staff but also for adequate mobility and the Committee has made appropriate recommendations. In conclusion I wish to thank the members of the Committee for their assistance and co-operation. I thank all the individuals and organisations who made submissions, or assisted the Committee in any other way. Special thanks are due to the Islander and Aboriginal Communities for their hospitality and co-operation during the Committee's visit to the Strait and Cape York Peninsula. I thank George Mye, Chairman of the Island Co-ordinating Council, who travelled with and assisted the Committee. I also thank officers from the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, and Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry who travelled with the Committee and were of great assistance. Finally I would like to thank the staff who worked on this inquiry, particularly Peter Roberts (former secretary), Mary-Louise Willheim (acting secretary), Elizabeth Mountain (research officer) and June Fallick (former steno-secretary). I commend the report to the Senate. Senator ZAKHAROV —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I present a report on the proposals for variations of the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs, 88th series, together with minutes of proceedings. I seek leave to make a statement on the report. Leave granted. Senator REID —The report I have tabled deals with 14 items to vary the city plan, and the Committee recommends approval of all but one of these variations. In its consideration of items in this series the Committee took evidence from 10 witnesses appearing as individuals and representing various organisations. The cost involved in the proposal dealt with in this report is approximately $7.5m, with another $45m estimated for completion of all stages of the Eastern Parkway. I wish to comment on just two of these variations. Variation four provides for the deletion of part of the road reservation in Kaye Place, Yarralumla, to allow the area to be included in the lease for the Hotel Canberra and the construction of a rear entrance for the hotel. This forms part of the construction program for the hotel, which should be completed by 1987. An objection to the variation was received from the proprietor of the nearby service station, who claimed that the increased traffic generated by the hotel entrance would jeopardise his business and make access to his service station difficult. I point out that this service station proprietor has for some time had difficulties because of the changes to the roads in the vicinity, including access to Coronation Drive, and also through lack of commitment, I believe, by the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories to resolve the problems thereby created. At the public hearing, when questioned about his intentions regarding the continued operation of the service station, the proprietor assured the Committee that he would like to carry on as a service station operator. In response to a question regarding the state of negotiations and potential purchase of the service station site by the Hyatt hotel group, the Committee was told that although some discussions had taken place no conclusion had been reached and all negotiations had ceased. Just 11 days after that public hearing the Committee was informed that the service station site had been sold to the hotel group. The Committee is not satisfied that it was made fully aware of all aspects of dealings concerning the future of the service station in Kaye Place. However, as the objection to the variation was then withdrawn, the Committee does not see any reason to withhold approval of the variation. The one item deferred by the Committee relates to construction of the preliminary stages of the Eastern Parkway, which will provide a parkway access system to Tuggeranong comparable to that existing on the western side of Canberra. The Eastern Parkway will also have benefits in relation to traffic between Queanbeyan and Canberra and for regional traffic travelling between the Monaro Highway and locations to the north. The estimated cost for the construction was $50m at present prices, with that work being carried out in stages over a number of years. While the Committee was provided with some details regarding the shape and construction of the road system, it is not satisfied that it was briefed adequately on the costing component or estimates of traffic flows on particular sections of the road. The Committee has further doubts about the extent to which this road is a priority in the present economic climate, and therefore recommends that this item be deferred pending a full briefing and overview of the proposal at a later date by the National Capital Development Commission. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present a report relating to the construction of a new wharf and seamanship school at HMAS Cerberus, Crib Point, Victoria. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-HMAS Cerberus is the Royal Australian Navy's largest training establishment. It occupies a 1,500 hectare site at Crib Point, near Westernport Bay in Victoria. The base has been developed over many years and contains instructional facilities for a number of schools including the seamanship school. The major components of the proposal which the Committee on Public Works examined is the construction of a new building to house the seamanship school, and a wharf including a marina. The Committee found that existing facilities and arrangements for training sailors in seamanship, survival at sea and ship husbandry are substandard and antiquated. The Committee concluded that the proposed new seamanship school building will meet the Navy's functional requirements. The report draws attention to two matters which should be further examined by the Department of Defence and the Department of Housing and Construction. The first is the provision of storage space for paints and other flammable products in the ship husbandry section of the building. The Committee believes the location of this storage space should be reviewed and if necessary an alternative location found. The second is the amount of space available for instructors-65 square metres for 10 instructors. The Committee believes the space allocation provided should be reviewed. Another component of the proposed work is the construction of a wharf for assigned and visiting craft, such as patrol boats, and seamanship training, and a floating marina for training and support craft. The need for these facilities was clearly demonstrated, and the extent and design of the proposed facilities will enable practical seamanship training to be carried out and for operational training and support vessels to be adequately moored and maintained. Dredging of the turning basin adjacent to the wharf and of the channel into Hann's Inlet is also proposed. The Committee is conscious of the need to ensure that the effects of the dredging on the environment is minimised. On the basis of assurances given by departmental officials, the Committee is satisfied that every precaution will be taken to minimise the effects of the dredging. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the report relating to the development of HMAS Albatross, Nowra, New South Wales, stage 1. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-HMAS Albatross is located approximately eight kilometres south west of Nowra, New South Wales. The base provides operational maintenance, logistic and administrative support for the aircraft, equipment and personnel of resident squadrons and Royal Australian Navy ships' helicopter flights when disembarked. The base also provides support for Royal Australian Air Force, Army and civilian aircraft operating in the area in support of the fleet or on other tasks. A squadron of Seahawk helicopters is to be deployed at the base; the first Seahawk being delivered in March 1988. The proposal is for the provision of facilities to service and maintain the Seahawk helicopters, and for the development of new facilities and the upgrading of existing facilities for the effective and efficient operation of the base. The Committee on Public Accounts concludes that the works proposed will be adequate to support the development of the Seahawks and will also improve the overall efficiency of the base. Attention is drawn in the report to possible future urban development and whether this may hinder the operations of the base. The Committee concludes that continuing discussions should take place between the Department of Defence and the Shoalhaven City Council to ensure that this will not occur. Attention is also drawn to the possibility of a future cycleway from Nowra to the base. The Committee believes that there is merit in the Department of Defence having discussions with the Shoalhaven City Council and community groups on this matter. Finally, the Committee has recommended that consultations should take place with relevant State and local government bodies prior to its consideration of a proposal. The Committee recommends construction of the work in this reference. Motion (by Senator Archer)-by leave-proposed: That the Senate take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Senator Vigor) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.26) —During the debate on the Australian Institute of Sport legislation on 9 October the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) asserted: . . . it is a policy of our Government, and one we have gone to considerable lengths to implement, that on any Government appointed body there should be as far as possible equal representation of the sexes. This was when she refused the Australian Democrats amendment to that Bill to achieve such equal representation on the Board of the Australian Institute of Sport. What is the current status on that particular Board? I note that the membership of the Tourism Advisory Council is set out in Additional Estimates material for the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism and there is just one woman among the 21 people listed. I would like to know whether this is a reasonable example of how the Government's policy is being implemented. On the National Australia Day Council there are four women in a list of 14 names. One of the 13 commissioners of the Australian Tourist Commission is female. Does this, in fact, mean that some Ministers have to be worked on a fair bit to be able to get this policy implemented? I seek such an answer from Senator Ryan who is here now. The other question I would like to follow up relates to the estimates of total expenditure on advertising and promotional activities and general relations by the Government departments during 1985-86. The figure of $49.27m was given without an indication of what it actually included-whether it included on-cost elements and exactly what was meant by this very large figure. Could we get an idea of the on-cost figure which was adopted in this particular case? I would also like to know whether the Minister is able to indicate or to give us an all up advertising and promotional figure for all government operations including statutory bodies. As the co-ordination of advertising occurs within this Department that figure should be available. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.28) —On the first series of questions which Senator Vigor posed about the representation of women on various bodies within the portfolios being examined, he answered his own questions to some extent by quoting numbers. I would like to point out to Senator Vigor that the 50 per cent target is a longer term strategy on many boards and commissions throughout the Commonwealth's area of responsibility. There is very close to 50 per cent of women on others. That is still a goal we are pursuing. The way in which we seek suitable people is, first of all, through portfolio advice, but particularly through the register of women which is being compiled by the Office of the Status of Women. In fact, it was started during the time of our predecessors, I must acknowledge. I have frequently invited women such as my parliamentary colleagues Senator Reid and Senator Newman to suggest and to nominate women with a variety of skills and experience in the community who would be suited to appointment. One of the problems that Ministers have is that we still do not have a comprehensive data bank of appropriate women for all kinds of appointments. I repeat my invitation, particularly to Senator Reid and Senator Newman and also, of course, to male senators, that if they are aware of women who have attributes that make them suitable for such appointments to ensure that their curriculum vitaes are forwarded to the Office of the Status of Women to be included on the register of women. That is a common way in which Ministers seek to find suitable women for appointment. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(8.00) —This morning when we were discussing this matter I raised the question of the Anzac Rifle Range and asked why it was being sold, if the sale must proceed-- Senator Walsh —Because we want the money, of course. Senator REID —The Minister gave an interesting answer to this question on 23 October. He should apply the same test to himself as he does to others. I asked whether or not the range could be retained, at least so that it would be available for the bicentennial rifle shooting event planned for April 1988, a prestigious international event at which over 16 countries will be represented. As I said previously, 60,000 or more people use the rifle range. A considerable portion of it is a rubbish dump comprising all sorts of things: Asbestos, as I mentioned this morning, building debris, soil, commercial waste, garden debris, tree stumps and car bodies. It has not been compacted. That certainly is significant in terms of the value of the property. The significance of it relates to whether rifle shooting is regarded as a serious sport in this country. We have been told that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has implied to these people that he is attempting to get the decision overturned. Is that correct or is it mere rhetoric to try to keep the sporting groups concerned happy? It is certainly not clear to those involved as to whether any solution is emerging at present. The Anzac Rifle Range is the headquarters of the New South Wales Rifle Association, the largest rifle association in Australia. Certainly, the Canberra Rifle Club, which is one of the largest clubs in Australia, has an interest in whether the site is retained. I understand that it is likely that the New South Wales Government will take some interest in this land if it is to be sold as far as zoning is concerned and will require that the foreshore areas be protected and that the tip fill area I have referred to, which is about half the land, should be zoned as open space. Senator Walsh —Why? Senator REID —That is what I am asking the Minister. He is here to answer the questions. I understand that the New South Wales Government is very likely to require this to be the case. If that is the case, the Federal Government should acquaint itself of the fact and know exactly what the status of this land is. The rifle associations will be seeking compensation for the facilities and the money they will lose in planning the bicentennial championship. They will certainly be entitled to recompense for their facilities on the land. I wonder whether any estimate has been made as to how much that compensation will be. In the end, the actual value of the land may well be considerably less than is anticipated. The sale of the Anzac Rifle Range will remove forever from the residents of Sydney their largest shooting complex. It will remove a vital training centre for the defence forces. Over 23,000 service personnel used the range last year. Senator Walsh —Sack them. Senator REID —The Minister may say `sack them', but other people have a much higher regard for our defence forces, their need and the role they play in this country. I, for one, want to be certain that our defence personnel have the best possible facilities and opportunities. The sale of the Anzac Rifle Range will remove forever a large open space area from the citizens of Sydney's eastern suburbs. In the event of a serious national emergency, where is there a similar large area on which a number of troops or other personnel could be put for a period? We will get to defence later in these discussions. Tonight it is a matter of trying to find out the true position of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Does he mean what he says in the letters he has written which is that he is actively attempting to seek the Cabinet overturn of this decision, or is that mere rhetoric? What is to happen to the Anzac Rifle Range? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.05) —It is nice to hear Senator Reid talk about somewhere outside the Australian Capital Territory. I think it is a good thing. But on this occasion she has picked an area which I actually know something about. Senator Reid says that the sale of Anzac Rifle Range would deprive the people of the eastern suburbs of Sydney of a large open space. Of course that is true, but it is not an open space they have been able to use. The people of the eastern suburbs of Sydney do not go wandering down the middle of Anzac Rifle Range. They would get shot if they did. What Senator Reid says is nonsense. Senator Peter Baume —They don't do it twice. Senator GRIMES —They certainly do not do it twice. Secondly, certainly part of the area has been a tip. Whole suburbs of houses in Sydney have been built on tips. Senator Reid —This is uncompacted. Senator GRIMES —One can compact it. One can send in things called bulldozers and other things to compact the area. The estimated minimum value of this rifle range is $16m; its maximum value is $40m. The famous Cumberland Oval, the new Parramatta Park, which seats-when Parramatta plays there-something like 30,000 or 40,000 people every Saturday, and even very large numbers when soccer is played there, did not cost anywhere like that amount. The question is: Should the citizens of Sydney-should citizens of Australia-have to pay, in revenue forgone, this amount of money for a rifle range? That is what this matter is about. Of course rifle shooting is a serious sport. Of course the training of people to shoot rifles in the Army is serious, but the Anzac Rifle Range is not the only rifle range in Sydney. It is very far away from the Army depots in New South Wales. To suggest, as Senator Reid does, that civilisation as we know it is going to end because of the sale of this rifle range is fascinating. We are given lectures by people such as Senator Reid again and again that we have to cut government expenditure, look to ourselves and make ourselves properly Budget-conscious. Yet she tells us that the Commonwealth should provide land worth anything up to $40m for rifle clubs to enable people to shoot bullets up and down. This is a very good example of the situation we face in this place. We are lectured day after day that we should save money, that we should not waste money and that we should cut down government activities as much as possible. Then Senator Reid comes in here seriously and tells us that we should not sell this rifle range because, apparently, it is important for the defence of the nation and civilisation as we know it. She makes the other point that in New South Wales the Government might not let us do what we want to do with the rifle range. I have one remark about that. I know that the rifle range is part of Mr Carr's electorate and that he would like to keep a large part of it as open space. He can. There is no reason in the world why he cannot. If he deprives us of $8m or $10m to make it an open area, I am sure that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and others in the Federal Government will ensure that that amount of money is removed from New South Wales's State grants to enable it to indulge itself in that way. With due respect, Senator Reid cannot come in here and tell us that we have to cut government expenditure and that we have to get rid of unnecessary property, et cetera, and then, as soon as we go to sell a rifle range-a rifle range which is a beautiful place, a lovely, scenic area-tell us that we are depriving the people of the eastern suburbs of Sydney of it when they cannot walk around it or near it for fear of getting shot. She cannot tell us that we cannot use the range because it is a tip area when large areas of Sydney are already built on tip areas. Senator Reid —It has got asbestos in it, too. Senator GRIMES —For heaven's sake! The problem with the people of Canberra is that they are frightened of anything that they think is dangerous. Senator Reid should not transfer that to the people of this part of Sydney. They do not believe her. If the rubbish is buried and compacted there is no reason why the area cannot be used as a building area. If the New South Wales Government decides that it cannot, that is its responsibility and cost. The honourable senator should not come in here and tell me, every time we try to make a reduction in government expenditure and get some more revenue, that we cannot do that because of a special interest group that is so far away from the honourable senator's electorate, except for the denizens of the Royal Military College at Duntroon, who I suspect may have written the speech that the honourable senator made tonight. Do we have to put up with that nonsense? Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(8.11) —I have not heard from anyone at Duntroon. I happen to be a patron of the Canberra Rifle Club. Its members have been in contact with me about this matter. There is a vastly different accounting procedure between recurrent expenditure and getting rid of assets. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) dealt with a question about flogging off assets in an answer on 23 October. That is a quite different matter. The second part of what I asked the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), which he did not address, was: If this area is to be sold, can it be retained until the Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships have taken place in April 1988? Can this range be used for that purpose or must those people organising the championships cancel forthwith those events and put the arrangements totally to one side? That is a fairly simple question. I would have thought that it could have been answered easily in the affirmative that, yes, the area can be retained for that event in 1988. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.12) —I doubt that but I will refer the matter to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). There are other rifle ranges in Sydney and this country which could be used. Senator Reid —They are not as large as this one. Senator GRIMES —Of course they are not. No rifle range in this country is as large and on such valuable land as this range. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(8.13) —I wish to draw attention to the Tourism Advisory Council. It is set up to maintain close consultative links between government and the industry. The terms of the Council state that the membership is designed to reflect in a balanced way the interests of various industry sectors, trade unions and other interested parties. I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this Tourism Advisory Council has 18 members and is totally unrepresentative of the industry sectors, trade unions and other interested parties. To begin with, it ignores half of Australia. Of the 18 members, not one comes from Western Australia, South Australia the Northern Territory or Tasmania. All those States, I would have thought, have a keen interest in tourism. As a senator for Tasmania I understand this. It is interesting to see that six of the 18 representatives come from the Australian Capital Territory. Four of the 18 come from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Two of those trade union members are from Queensland and two are from Victoria. If we were to have four trade union representatives on a committee of 18 their State distribution could have been better. When we think about the States that are not represented we think of the International Gateway at Perth, the America's Cup and the great strides that that State has made in tourism in recent years. We think of South Australia and the Northern Territory, the Flinders Ranges and Ayers Rock. We think of Kakadu National Park, about which this Government sometimes thinks a lot and sometimes does not think at all. When we think of Tasmania we think of the South West National Park and Port Arthur, the historic site which once again the Government likes to pick up and put down, depending upon when it is politically advantageous to do so. Leaving the politics of this aside, I am concerned that out of an advisory council of 18 people, which is designed to reflect in a balanced way the interests of the various industry sectors, we have such an unrepresentative group. I query whether this body is really much use. It meets only twice a year. It does not cost the Commonwealth a huge amount of money but I fear that it is really just an extra body which does not serve much good purpose. We have a tourist Ministers council comprising all the tourist Ministers from the States and the Commonwealth, a national tourism committee of States and industry and the Australian Tourist Commission. I query why we need a Tourism Advisory Council of 18 people who come from a small part of the eastern mainland States-six of them from Canberra. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.15) —Very briefly, I want to refer to the matters that Senator Reid has mentioned, because I received today a response to a question I asked on 18 September of the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) about the rifle range. In view of the Government's cosmetic decision to pretend that it is doing something reasonable to cut expenses and reduce the deficit by selling this rifle range-which, of course, will be no more than a pimple in terms of the problems it faces-I had specifically asked: Has the Government held any discussions with the New South Wales Rifle Association or with the Bicentenary Authority about possible alternate sites for the holding of the planned 1988 Bicentenary Shoot that had been proposed to be held at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar which the Government now proposes to sell. The extraordinary and uninformative response was: The Deputy Prime Minister and the Ministers for Defence, Sport, Recreation and Tourism and I- that is, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services- have separately held discussions with representatives of the New South Wales Rifle Association, the Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships and the National Rifle Association about the proposed sale of the Anzac Rifle Range and the impact of such a sale on the planned 1988 Bicentenary shoot. That is very informative! What was the result of those discussions? Has the Government any proposals to fix up the mess in which it has put this bicentennial arrangement, funded by its left hand-the Australian Bicentennial Authority-if it still speaks to its left hand? In the absence of any coherent response to this question, it is reasonable to ask: What was the outcome of those discussions? Has the Government a coherent plan to fix up this mess? I also asked: Did the Government in its decision to consider selling the Anzac Rifle Range, take into consideration that the Range is used by about 120,000 people annually, including Defence and Corrective Services personnel. The response was: The current usage of the Range by the Commonwealth and various non-Commonwealth users was brought to the Government's attention in its consideration of the proposed sale. This means that it clearly ignored those considerations, even though the usage rate is enormously high and, as the Minister has conceded, there is no alternative of a similar nature available. I then asked: What alternative arrangements would be made for these users of the Anzac Rifle Range. The response was: Alternative arrangements for current Commonwealth users of the Anzac Rifle Range is a matter for consideration by the relevant Commonwealth departments. That tells me nothing. That is a classic Yes, Minister nonsense. It is bureaucratic nonsense and claptrap aimed at obfuscation-which is another good bureaucratic word. The real question is: If this is a matter for consideration by the relevant Commonwealth departments, has it been considered? Why can the Senate not be told? Has consideration been given to it and what alternative arrangements will be made? Has the Government an idea, or does it not care? It is adopting its usual arrogant approach when asked to justify some damn fool decision that it has made-which it made before taking into consideration the consequences of what it was doing? In the end, the costs may be far higher. Why cannot the Government just defer the sale of this range, if it is desperate to sell it, until after the 1988 Bicentenary? I do not know why it cannot and we have not had a coherent response from the Government on that score, except to say that this sale will help the Government's economic objectives in the current financial year. I let the Government know that it will have worse economic problems next year and the year after, if it is still in power-which I doubt. Perhaps it will then need the proceeds far more than it needs them this year in its cosmetic attempts to dress up the extent of the economic disaster it now faces. It has refused to give the Senate any idea of what alternative arrangements are to be made for this bicentennial shoot, which is financed and supported by the Australian Bicentennial Authority-which the Government is now quite prepared to forget. On top of that the Minister said: I am not aware that the Government has given specific consideration to alternative arrangements for non-Commonwealth users of the Range. In other words, this is another example of the Senate, the Australian Bicentennial Authority and the rifle shooters being told to go to blazes by an arrogant government. I turn to another question relating to this Department which concerns the Government Printing Office. Honourable senators have been aware that since printing procedures changed there have been extraordinary delays in the production of the Senate Hansard. We appear to be getting copies a little earlier now than before. We are getting them actually on the morning of the following day-it might be fairly late in the morning. We did have incredible difficulties. From the Senate Estimates committee hearings I note that there seem to have been extraordinary problems. The estimate for overtime for 1985-86 at the Australian Government Publishing Service was $1.55m but the actual overtime expenditure was $2.49m-a very substantial overspending. Written explanations were given about what was going on. The reply stated: Hansard volumes also increased significantly with Senate Hansard running 34 per cent and House 62 per cent over the previous financial year's volumes. This work has to be produced to tight deadlines, this invariably meant having to utilise extra overtime. I must say that I was not aware that the House and the Senate were making such massively increased demands on the service. It astounds me that the House has a 62 per cent additional demand for Hansard. I am really staggered. I will not say that I do not believe it but it does seem absolutely extraordinary. The reply also states: Other factors which contributed to the overall increase in overtime were; Change in Parliamentary sitting schedules . . . The reply also lists: Loss of production and shift continuity when the move from a 40 hour to a 38 hour week occurred. As the Government is aware, the Opposition has been highly critical of the move towards reduced hours as an additional labour cost at a time when the Australian economy cannot afford it. Here we have a situation in which in one of the Government's own activities this move has created more disruption than the simple cost of reducing from a 40-hour to a 38-hour week would appear to produce. In other words, there is a loss of production and shift continuity. That hidden cost is added to the loss of production due to repetition strain injury. I regret to say that the AGPS has what appears to be an excessive volume of RSI complaints. Out of a total of 34 cases involving invalidity retirement there were 13 instances of retirement due to RSI. As I have already noted concerning other departments, other neck-back injuries and stress related problems seem to make up the bulk of people who retired from that organisation. Given that these additional problems occur, it is worth noting that due to employment level restrictions the area is understaffed. The reply states: . . . due to ASL restriction, the area is understaffed thus leaving certain machines inoperative. This means that jobs can only be produced on a restricted number of machines thus creating backlogs and limiting the official use of resources. I am all in favour of the Government saving money, but if by saving money it incurs greater expenditure and inefficient production, more overtime and all the other disruptions that have been put up with, it is totally false economy. If the Government has the capacity to examine simple managerial problems such as the ones that have emerged in the Government Publishing Service, where there are clear inefficiencies emerging from deliberate work and financial practices no doubt imposed by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who cost the Australian Broadcasting Corporation $12m by refusing to allow it to forward cover last year, with that kind of negative approach we can expect that sort of problem. The last comment I make is on the question of publicity and promotion. This emerges through the estimates of this Department. It concerns the general question of advertising. In an article last week in the Australian Financial Review it was evident that the expenditure on fringe benefits tax advertising is going to be far higher than the $2m about which we heard. The figure will be much closer to $5m-- Senator Newman —Disgraceful! Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Exactly. The advertising promotes in clearly political terms, but financed by the taxpayer, the so-called benefits of this tax, which hits so many people in the community, particularly the business area, which is endeavouring to get itself out of trouble and on which future employment depends in Australia. According to the Australian Financial Review report, the Government will launch stage 2 of its campaign in early December with a blanket television coverage. We have seen the political and disgraceful nature of the Press advertisements so far. They use an almost subliminal advertising form by dropping the word `fair' all the way through them, even though the way in which this tax is being imposed is patently unfair. I presume that all these sneaky devices will be repeated in the 45-second television commercials. The Australian Financial Review says that again the theme fairness will be repeated. The reality is that this kind of advertising is a disgrace. It is politicising the Public Service because the advertisements are not being signed or authorised by the Government or the Minister; they are being signed or authorised by the Department itself. These advertisements come in this case from the Department of the Treasury and they say `the Treasury', not `the Treasurer'. Senator Vigor —That's who pulls the strings. Senator Walsh goes to sleep when the strings are not being pulled. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Yes, I agree. The reality is that these advertisements have a political content. It could perhaps be justified if a political person signed the advertisements, even though it would be disgraceful that public money was being used. In this case the Department itself is being corrupted. It is exactly the same sort of political corruption of the bureaucracy that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is trying to implement at the moment by insisting on getting his own appointee from outside into the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. I revealed this matter yesterday. It is causing great turmoil and concern within the Commonwealth Bank because it is exactly the same kind of politicising of the administrative processes that has gone on under this Government. This is an absolute disgrace and I hope that when people watch this unprecedented advertising blitzkrieg, which will of course be financed by the taxpayers of Australia, they will recognise that this is totally improper. The enthusiasm of the Government for spending their money in this way covers up a disgraceful lack of responsibility and an intrusion into the funds that should be available to reduce taxes in Australia. In this context I ask the Minister: Will he reveal now at last the real cost of the advertising? The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia)(8.30) —I would like to say something about the Anzac Rifle Club. I have received quite a bit of correspondence about the Anzac Rifle Range. In fairness to the club, I do not think it is much interested in the point scoring that has taken place in the Senate. It is more concerned about the future of the club. It has made arrangements internationally to have a bicentennial shoot on that rifle range. Its concern is that it has only just discovered that the rifle range could be put up for sale by the Commonwealth Government. It would like to know what the position is as far as the club is concerned. Can the Commonwealth find an alternative site for it? If not, can it help it out of the situation of having already made arrangements internationally to hold this bicentennial shoot at the Anzac Rifle Range? It has already spoken to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). It has received no firm decision to date. It is keen to receive some firm decision. It is upset about the range being sold, but it is not taking it out on the Commonwealth Government. It accepts that if the Commonwealth Government intends to sell the range it will be sold. It is concerned about the arrangements it has already entered into for the bicentennial shoot. It is still in a dilemma as to what the situation is. It would like a definite answer from the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism so that it can continue with the arrangements it has already made. It has already gone to a lot of expense, and it will certainly be liable for that expense. I do not think there is anything unreasonable about the request of the Anzac Rifle Club for the Minister to let it know what the position is as soon as possible. It is not concerned about whether the responsibility lies with the State or the Commonwealth. It is concerned to know whose responsibility it will be to see that it can continue with the international shoot. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(8.32) —I wish to raise a couple of matters concerning the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Both of them relate to my State. The first matter concerns the national sports facilities program. This program provides for national venues of great quality in different States. In Tasmania a hockey facility has already been produced at Cornelian Bay, which is going very well and, I believe, according to plan. The one that I want to raise tonight is the netball facility at Hoblers Bridge. During the Estimates committee hearings I asked questions about this facility. I was very concerned at the answer I received, namely, that this facility was not included in the funding for this financial year and would not now receive money until next year. The national sports facilities program is funded on a dollar for dollar basis. In this case Tasmania is supposed to contribute the sum of $635,000 and the Commonwealth is also supposed to contribute $635,000. In view of the fact that the Commonwealth has not provided money for the project in this financial year, Tasmania will be required to meet all the costs of the project this year. Because of the present high interest rates, thanks to this Government's economic management, Tasmania is meeting an exceptionally high load for a State with such a small population. The answer which I received during the Estimates committee hearing was that only $7m was appropriated this year and that those moneys were divided amongst the projects that had started. I was told that it was probably news to the Department that the netball facility had been started four or five months ago, which was the time when the decisions about the Budget were taken. I was also told that a number of projects around the country would be funded next year rather than this year and this project was one of those. I do not think that is good enough. I think it is quite disgraceful. The Tasmanian Government wrote to the Commonwealth on 13 May this year, indicating that work had commenced, setting out the details of the project, giving information about the tenders and expected date of completion. I must ask: Is this another example of Tasmania getting a raw deal from this Labor Government, or is it a case of inefficiency in the Department? Either way, will this situation be rectified? Will the Tasmanian project, which was properly documented and done according to the requirements, be reinstated and paid for by the Commonwealth in this financial year, or is that how the Government deals with its lack of money due to poor management? I will raise a second matter, seeing that the Minister is still asleep, and ask him to reply to both matters at the end of my remarks. The second matter also concerns Tasmania. I refer to the national cycling satellite of the Australian Institute of Sport. The Australian Institute of Sport is attempting to set up satellites for various specialty sports around Australia. I understand, from public statements that the Minister has made, that the decision as to the cycling satellite has not yet been taken. Nevertheless, during the Estimates committee hearings it was quite clear from the evidence that was given by the departmental officers that the Minister had already stated a preference, that he had made it quite clear that he preferred Adelaide, and that the decision would be taken on the basis of government to government relationships. That is a very bureaucratic way of saying that it will be based on a political consideration. The Minister was concerned that I should not put that connotation on it. But I can see no way of putting any other connotation on it. Let us look at the items which must be considered when deciding why a cycling institute would be sited in any one location. The General Manager of the Institute of Sport said that the only covered velodrome in Australia was in Tasmania and that it was an absolutely magnificent facility. There is no doubt that it is the best velodrome in Australia. Nevertheless, for reasons of government to government relationships, the Government will make the decision in favour of Adelaide. The board of management of the Institute of Sport is keen to move quickly. It wants it to be up and running in February. A new velodrome will have to be built in Adelaide, if it is to be sited there. Adelaide does not have a velodrome of the standard that is required for a national cycling institute. Nevertheless, for reasons of government to government relationships, it looks as though the Minister will site it in Adelaide. Two or three years ago the Tasmanian Government, in a magnificent submission to the Federal Government, recommended that it be placed in Tasmania and offered to host a cycling unit in our State. It has recently renewed that offer. The position of the national coach was not regarded as being a matter of prime concern. If it were, one would be moving the institute around the place every time a coach resigned. The presence of the South Australian Sports Institute and a good science and medical back-up, seemed to weigh in favour of it. But let me list the things that Tasmania has. As I said, it has the very best velodrome in Australia. It has the only covered velodrome in Australia. Senator Walsh —Who paid for that? Senator NEWMAN —It is up and running. I am glad that Senator Walsh asked who paid for it. The Commonwealth did contribute to it. I must ask: Would the taxpayers relish the thought of paying for another one in Adelaide? The Tasmanian State Institute of Technology is co-operating with the newly established Tasmanian Institute of Sport. We have sports medicine facilities. We have campuses for academic facilities in the tertiary education areas for cyclists who wish to complete their education. The Tasmanian Institute of Sport is headed by Rick Mitchell, an Olympic silver medallist. We have physical education and applied science staff at the TSIT and they are available to supply additional skills to the TIS. Since this matter has become public, the Minister has been saying things like `Adelaide has marvellous hilly country in which to ride a bike and do road work'. I think it looks as though the Minister has not been to Launceston. We have some of the most marvellous hilly roads for road races that one could possibly imagine. We also have an off road, open road race track so that road training can be conducted away from traffic. We have everything possible, ready to go right now. I have to ask: Why it is that for government to government relationships the decision looks like favouring Adelaide? Can the Minister tell me that? Can he explain to the people of Tasmania why they, as taxpayers, and the rest of the taxpayers of Australia, have to contribute to yet another world class cycling velodrome when one is up and ready? If the Government wants it up, ready and running by February, it can have it-but not in Adelaide? Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.41) —I asked the Minister whether he would tell us what the Government's advertising campaign on the fringe benefits tax would cost. He appears to have chosen not to answer that question. I think it is a question on which we deserve an answer, particularly as it goes to the fairness of the legislation and involves clear political advertising. We are aware that the advertisements which have already come out focus heavily on the issue of fringe benefits, saying that under the old tax system people who were paying tax on their full income were effectively subsidising those who got part of their incomes in untaxed fringe benefits. Quite frankly, if we are to have money spent on that kind of thing, why cannot the Government, through this Department, provide funds to the Opposition so that we could ask a similar question? The similar question that we could ask would be: Who is going to pay the fringe benefits tax that will be attracted, for example, by allowances paid to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or to the Treasurer (Mr Keating)? Who is going to end up paying the tax on those specific allowances or benefits that would be subject to fringe benefits tax? Who is going to pay Bob Hawke's fringe benefits tax? The answer is: The taxpayers of Australia. Is it fair that the taxpayers of Australia will have to pay extra taxes to provide the fringe benefits tax on Bob Hawke's allowances? It is an absolute absurdity. That is why I am so irritated by the fact that this word `fairness' is being used almost ad absurdum. I wonder whether the Minister would like now to do us the courtesy of telling us how much taxpayers' money is going to be spent on this enormous political campaign. We thought initially that it was going to cost about $2m to promote this disgraceful tax, but it now appears that it will cost about $5m. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(8.43) —A number of questions of varying quality and relevance have been asked, and I will take them on notice. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(8.43) —I believe that the Committee is currently being taken for a ride by the Minister. I have been through this Committee stage debate and we have had co-operation from all of the Ministers except Senator Walsh. As somebody who is very keen on representing the people of my State and the people of Australia, I am appalled by this situation. We have a commitment to get information and to supervise effectively what is happening within the Public Service and the political decisions the Executive Government is making. I notice that the Minister is now walking out. This Minister has been feigning to be asleep at least I hope that he was feigning-during the whole of this exercise. I believe that the people of Australia need to know what has been happening. I have asked three questions. The Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, was here and she promised that those questions would be answered by the next Minister who followed. I will repeat one of the questions I have asked of this Minister. Senator Newman —Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that the Minister is smoking in the chamber. Is this not contrary to Standing Orders? Senator McIntosh —He is not smoking in the chamber at all. He is standing in the doorway. Senator Newman —His cigarette is in the chamber. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jessop) —I remind the Minister that he is not permitted to smoke in the chamber and that he can withdraw. Senator VIGOR —I asked some serious questions concerning the expenditure of money by this Government. Senator Michael Baume has done the same thing. Senator Reid and a number of other senators, including Senator McIntosh on the Government side of the chamber, have actually asked the Minister to give at least a reasonable answer. At the end of that process the Minister stood up and said that he would take those matters on notice. As for the questions I asked, I know that the Department was given notice of them. I was told that the material was available so that the Minister could answer. So, there is absolutely no need for these questions to be taken on notice. I have been extremely brief in terms of asking questions. I took about two minutes to ask questions on this Department. I can be long-winded and I could go on and keep this place occupied. I believe that we have no alternative but to do that type of thing if the Minister is going to ignore us and insult us. Currently that is exactly what is happening. I believe that it is a disgrace that the representative of the Government in this chamber should treat the chamber with such contempt. I ask the Minister at least to show us the courtesy of answering those questions on which the departmental people-I commend them for this-have been highly co-operative and have worked to give him the material necessary for him to provide answers. I believe that it is quite untenable that a Minister of the Crown should act in this way in the upper House of this Parliament, this House of review. I see it as nothing but an insult to all of us here that this type of thing should be happening. Senator Lewis —And to the people of Australia. Senator VIGOR —And to the people of Australia. We have been elected as a House of review and we are not being given a chance to review. This is a most important Bill which passes all of the expenditure for the Government, apart from that which gets sneaked through in special appropriations and by various other tricks. This is where we actually review what the Government is doing. The Australian Democrats have given a commitment not to vote against Appropriation Bill (No. 1). Because we have given that commitment, we have an even greater responsibility to investigate every matter in here and to bring matters to the notice of the people. I will not abrogate that responsibility and I will not allow a Minister of the Crown to continue in this way. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.48) —I just say to the Minister that, on my estimate, there are about 10 questions floating around that the Minister simply has made no attempt to answer. I see that the Minister is now seeking a brief from the public servants alongside him. I do hope that he will make some attempt to answer some parts of the questions. After all, the Minister has acknowledged that, in his estimate, the questions are of varying degrees of relevance. So, if he could start off by answering the ones that are relevant-- Senator Walsh —And quality. Senator LEWIS —And quality. If the Minister could start by answering those which he thinks are of some relevance and quality, we will have a look at what is left after he has given those answers. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.49) —The people listening to this debate, if there be any, are completely unaware that a considerable number of public servants who are being paid overtime are here to give the Minister any information of which he may not be aware, so that he can answer the questions being put to him by the Opposition. For him to ignore those questions-no other Minister has ever done that but he continually does it-is a complete waste of taxpayers' money and a complete waste of the time of this Committee. It is time he pulled himself into line or his Party pulled him into line and either made him answer the questions or sent into the chamber a Minister who will. The last time the Minister was here when we were dealing with the Estimates another Minister had to come in and take over because he was so ill-mannered that he refused to answer questions. This should occur again on this occasion if the Minister is not prepared to answer the questions that are put to him. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(8.51) —On the matter of waste of money, for once Senator Walters has drawn attention to something that is relevant, and that is that we have protracted Senate Estimates committee hearings at which senators who genuinely want to ask questions or seek information are able to do so. Some honourable senators-such as Senator Vigor, in particular, and Senator Walters-will abuse that privilege and waste the time of a number of senior public servants and parliamentary officials, and bore everyone within sight or within hearing. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jessop) —Senator Walsh, I do not think that is called for. You realise that in the Committee of the Whole any senator has a chance to ask questions, so I request you to be a little more polite in what you say. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr Temporary Chairman. Those senators then want a rerun of the proceedings in this place. I am answering Senator Lewis, by the way, who is an Opposition front bencher. We find that all the non-entities of the Opposition back bench, plus Senator Vigor, give their egomania a run when they get in here and go through the whole process again. If that is going to become a regular feature, which has increasingly been the case in recent years, we might as well dispense with the Senate Estimates committees and have the whole debate here once instead of twice. I note again for the record that the degree of seriousness with which the Opposition, let alone the Government, takes this farce can be measured by the degree to which the Opposition's front benchers contribute to it. Its front benchers mostly ignore it. Senator Lewis has been a minor exception to that and I will answer his questions in a minute. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walsh, do you wish to answer the question? Senator WALSH —I will give some answers. I do not know the answers to all of the questions that were asked. One of the questions that was asked is: What is the cost of advertising information this year? I am advised that the amount for advertising-I think it could be obtained from the Budget Papers by anybody who was numerate and literate enough to seek it out for himself-is $49.27m. The question of the cost of promotion is much more difficult, of course, because what is promotion? The question is so vague as to be almost meaningless. For those who really want to know what the budgeted amount for advertising is in this Budget, it is $49.27m. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(8.53) —That answer was given to me at the Estimates committee hearing. Senator Reynolds —Well, why aren't you satisfied? Senator VIGOR —Because that answer is totally meaningless unless we know what we are dealing with. The answer was given without any indication of what the on-cost element was in that area and of what it was spent on-whether it was spent on advertising agents or materials. We do not know anything about the staff component associated with that figure. A lot of the figures we have been given have notional on-cost figures built into them. Sometimes, because of finance, up to 88 per cent is added to salary figures. There is no way that any reasonable accountant would accept that type of answer. We are not interested in the bottom line; we are interested in a sensible appraisal from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) of how this expenditure was broken down. I believe that that figure and the breakdown are currently available to the Minister. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Mr Minister, do you wish to answer the rest of the questions or do you wish to obtain answers? If you do one or the other it will help the Committee. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(8.54) —Senator Vigor is seeking much more detail than I have available here. I repeat the offer to take that question on notice. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(8.55) —During the debate on the estimates of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism I drew attention to the fact that we were doing the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) the courtesy of leaving to the end of our questioning his answering our questions. He has still made no attempt to answer any of my questions. In case he was asleep when I asked them, I will repeat them in brief. Senator McIntosh —Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. The Minister has already answered the questions by saying that he has taken them on notice. I do not see any necessity for the Committee to be detained by honourable senators repeating the questions. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jessop) —There is no point of order. Senator NEWMAN —Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. In brief, my questions can be summarised as follows: Why is the netball centre at Hoblers Bridge in Launceston not included in this year's funding? Will it be reinstated now that I have demonstrated that all of the Commonwealth's requirements were met in plenty of time? Will the cycling satellite be placed in Adelaide and, if so, why? What is the effectiveness of the Tourism Advisory Council and why is it so unrepresentative? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(8.56) —The global answer is that those questions will be taken on notice. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.57) —I asked the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) what will be the cost of the advertising campaign specifically-- Senator McIntosh —Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. The same questions will be repeated. This is monotonous repetition. Surely under the rules we do not have to have the monotonous repetition of questions that have been answered. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I have ruled against your point of order previously. I have invited the Minister to provide answers to the questions that have been asked of him and he has chosen to take an attitude. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I asked the Minister whether he would advise the Committee specifically of the cost of the fringe benefits tax advertising-I described it as misleading and disgraceful-which it is claimed in the Australian Financial Review is likely to be $5m. The reason this point is worth reinforcing is that the figure of about $49.7m that the Minister just gave for the total advertising budget would suggest-- Senator Walsh —That is with add-ons. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —So it would be wrong, would it, for the Committee to take the view that 10 per cent of the total government advertising budget for this year will be spent on misleading advertising about the fringe benefits tax? Is that what the Committee can assume from that figure? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(8.58) —For a fellow who used to write the prospectuses for Patrick Partners to talk about misleading advertising is a bit of chutzpah, even for a Liberal. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walsh, I do not think that is called for. I suggest that you refrain from making those sorts of comments. Senator Michael Baume —I seek a withdrawal of the word `misleading'. I have never in my life been involved in writing anything misleading and if the Minister can prove otherwise I invite him to do so outside this place. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walsh, I suggest that you withdraw that comment. Senator WALSH —I withdraw it, Mr Temporary Chairman. I note that Senator Baume denies having written misleading material that Patrick Partners published when he was a partner. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —You should not elaborate on it, Minister. Senator WALSH —I do not know the answers to all these detailed questions. I do not think the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) would know off the top of his head the answers in detail to the sorts of questions that are being asked. If honourable senators want to go into this sort of detail, I repeat, they have had the opportunity of doing it in Estimates committee hearings. They try to rerun the whole thing here. They just waste everybody's time and they bore everyone, including most of the honourable senators on their own side. I again draw attention to the fact that, with the limited exception of Senator Lewis, who mercifully spoke for only about one minute, not even the Opposition front bench shows any interest in these matters. The only people who show any interest in them are the mediocrities and egomaniacs on the back bench, who apparently get some sort of kick out of behaving in the way they do. Senator Lewis —Mr Temporary Chairman, I take a point of order. All these imputations are highly disorderly and are not in accordance with Standing Orders. I appreciate that the Minister is speaking in a general way but he just cannot keep going on like this and making imputations. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I will rule on the point of order. If Senator Walsh undertakes to provide written answers to the questions that have been put to him, I believe the Committee will be satisfied. I would be happy to hear the Minister indicate that he would be prepared to do that. Senator WALSH —Mr Temporary Chairman, I do not think I can entirely comply with that because I do not have direct ministerial responsibility. I do undertake to ask the responsible Minister, Mr John Brown, to provide the answers he believes are appropriate. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —As far as I am concerned, I believe that is satisfactory. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.02) —It appears that the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Grimes, is about to take over from Senator Walsh and is sending him out with his tail between his legs. We may now very well get some answers to the questions which have been asked. With all due respect to Senator Walsh, who clearly did not seek briefings from the public servants who are available and ready to advise him, I ask Senator Grimes to give some consideration to the questions raised by Senator Newman, which I understand arise out of questions she asked during the hearings of Estimates Committee D. The questions she has asked in this debate are a logical succession to the questions she asked at that time. I see that a Public Service officer is briefing Senator Grimes. I would hope that in a few minutes Senator Grimes might have a briefing which Senator Walsh should have obtained about three-quarters of an hour ago. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.03) —I merely point out that I am in the chamber because it is my time to be on duty, not because of anything to do with Senator Walsh. I understand that Senator Newman was concerned about overdue accounts with the Australian Government Publishing Service. My advice is that the AGPS has recently introduced new debtor procedures and more attention is being paid to following up overdue accounts. This should help alleviate the problem of overdue debts. However, I must add that overdue debts are a problem of large organisations, government and non-government. I am sure that Senator Newman will agree with that. The problem must be addressed by both the AGPS and the client departments. I have no answer to give in regard to Senator Newman's question about cycling. I just make the point, as someone who also comes from Launceston, that of course I would like to see Launceston, with its excellent facilities, as the centre of the Australian Institute of Sport cycling. I too have made representations in that regard. All I can say is that no decision has yet been taken. We will take Senator Newman's views into account. I just make the point again that it is very convenient and easy at Estimates time to get up an wear one's arm out priming the parish pump. For heaven's sake, if we do that every time, it does not matter what government is in power, we put in danger the Senate Estimates system. To my knowledge the question of a cycling centre for the Australian Institute of Sport has been discussed for 18 months. It has been a matter of controversy in our local newspapers; it has also been a matter of controversy in South Australian local newspapers. I make the point that the only person who has raised this issue tonight is Senator Newman. I take considerable heart from the fact that the South Australian senators are not rising to speak in this debate one after the other advocating Adelaide, where Charlie Walsh is the coach as the centre of cycling. We may feel good-I am all for people feeling good-if we spend our time priming our local parish pumps when we speak on the Appropriation Bills and participate in Estimates committee hearings, but, for heaven's sake, that sort of thing debases this chamber. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.05) —I want to answer that specific point. Sadly, Senator Grimes was not in the chamber when I raised the issue of the location of the cycling centre of the Australian Institute of Sport. I very carefully based my comments on the fact that more taxpayers' money will be spent if yet another cycling velodrome is built anywhere else in Australia. Launceston already has the best, so why spend more money? Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.06) —I cannot let rest the last comments Senator Walsh made about the cost of the misleading advertising campaign that the Government is undertaking on the fringe benefits tax. I suggest to Senator Grimes that I certainly have not been priming any parish pump. I have been pumping this Government for a bit of information that we are entitled to have. This matter is intriguing because when Senator Walsh was asked how much this advertising campaign was going to cost-that is the fringe benefits tax advertising campaign which will involve a massive television promotion next month-he said: `I don't know the answer'. What a hot-shot Minister for Finance he is! One would assume that as Minister for Finance he would be intimately involved in this whole question of fringe benefits tax. One would think he would be closely associated with it and would take a great interest in what the cost of the advertising will be. After all, he seems to take a great interest in the cost of everything else around the place. Yet he says: `I don't know the answer'. Quite frankly, I do not believe that Senator Walsh does not know the answer. I do not believe that he does not have the capacity to provide the answer readily, here and now, except that, of course, he has been sent or has gone from the chamber. Senator Grimes —Oh, come on! Senator MICHAEL BAUME —He could have answered the question while he was in the chamber. In addition, it was quite improperly held that the question on fringe benefits tax advertising could have been asked during the sittings of the Estimates Committee D. It could not have been asked during the sittings of the Estimates Committee because this disgraceful advertising campaign had not in fact started when the Estimates Committee met. We found out about the additional television advertising campaign only by reading about it last week in the Australian Financial Review. So enough of the nonsense. I do not know what the Government has to hide. It clearly is embarrassed about the fact that it has been revealed that it is going to be spending $5m, according to the report in the Australian Financial Review, or something like 10 per cent of its total advertising campaign for this year on misleading advertisements on the fringe benefits tax. All we are asking for are the facts, and the Government, for some reason, wants to hide them. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.08) —I do not think honourable senators achieve much if they indulge in rhetoric and hyperbole across the chamber about what is misleading and what is not. I just comment in passing that I remember after the 1981-82 Budget the heart-rending television advertisements about how families were going to be helped by that Budget, which I understand Senator Michael Baume had something to do with at that time. We were all asked to weep and say how marvellous the then Government was. The Government of the day has a fringe benefits tax. It is my understanding that we have approved, I think, $2m for that advertising; there may be more. I will check that for Senator Baume. Whether or not that advertising is more misleading than the advertising was in 1981-82 I will leave for debate at other times rather than during the consideration of Appropriation Bills, when we are supposed to be concerned with objective judgments and facts. Senator Michael Baume —You are going to provide facts? Senator GRIMES I will provide the facts. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(9.10) —I think the Minister has missed the whole point. The introduction of the fringe benefits tax was the policy of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. They brought it in and it is under challenge in the High Court of Australia right at this time. Senator Grimes —If that is the case, it is sub judice, and I will not speak about it. Senator SHEIL —It just shows that the Government is using taxpayers' money to advertise its fringe benefits tax to the Australian people when the other side of the political spectrum is not being represented at all. That is why the interest is being shown by the speakers at this moment. I ask the Minister to give us a clear indication of how much the Government is spending in advertising the Australian Labor Party's policy in Australia. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.11) —I cannot remember Senator Sheil, at the time of the 1981 and 1982 Budgets, asking that the ALP's view should be put at government expense in the advertising that took place then. Senator Sheil —I wasn't in Parliament. Senator GRIMES —Of course the honourable senator was not in Parliament. He would not have asked for it either. The honourable senator is coming through one hundred proof so let us knock it off. I have said to Senator Baume that I will provide the information he asked for. I know that $2 million was approved for the advertising of the fringe benefits tax. I do not think that is an excessive amount considering the amount that was used to advertise the 1981 and 1982 Budgets, so I will get the answer back as soon as I can. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.12) —I still have two questions which have not been answered. Why is the netball centre at Hoblers Bridge Road not included in this year's funding of the national sports program? Will it now be reinstated? I draw the attention of the Minister for Community Services, as Senator Walters did earlier, to the fact that we have had public servants here for some hours ready, willing and able to advise the Minister on duty of the answers to these questions. His predecessor, not having been in a position to be able to give these answers we now look to this Minister for them. The other question is: What is the effectiveness of the Tourism Advisory Council and why is it so unrepresentative? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.13) —I am afraid the answer is that the netball facility at Hoblers Bridge Road was a combined effort between the Commonwealth and the State Government. The Tasmanian Government advised the Commonwealth Government on 13 May 1986 that no money had been expended, that only the roadworks had been started and that they had not finished the tenders for the buildings. The Commonwealth Government will wait until the State Government has fulfilled its part of the bargain before it goes ahead with the provisions at Hoblers Bridge Road. It is a great disappointment to me. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.13) —That is not the terms of the agreement, as I understand it. The Tasmanian Government advised that work was starting and under the terms of the agreement that was when funds would be budgeted for by the Commonwealth. They have not been budgeted for at all in this financial year. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.13) —The advice we got was that there was no point in the Commonwealth budgeting for it this year because the State Government would not have fulfilled its obligations by the end of this year. When it has fulfilled its obligations, we will reconsider it. But it is a matter of great concern to me, as it is to the good senator. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.14) —I am sorry, but if that is the answer that has been given to the Minister, I am concerned about the quality of advice that he is getting. That is not the basis on which the Cornelian Bay hockey centre was funded and it is not, as I understand it, the basis on which these programs are funded. They are done by progress payments as the work proceeds. The work is proceeding and it will be completed well inside this financial year. I fail to see why it was not included in the Budget estimates. It was either an oversight or it was a way of saving money. I am not satisfied with the answer. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.14) —It does not mean that the project has been dropped it just means that it will be completed much later than the Commonwealth originally thought it would. Senator Newman —The State has to finance it. Senator GRIMES —The State does not have to finance it. Senator Newman —The State is financing it this year, Senator. Senator GRIMES —The State and the Commonwealth are both in the project and if the State is lagging in its contributions then the Commonwealth lags behind too. We are driven by the State Government. I know that the honourable senator is here as a-- Senator Newman —I am a resident Tasmanian senator. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator is a resident Tasmanian but she is also here to explain the lack of activity of the State Government. We are going to have a netball facility at Hoblers Bridge Road. It is going to be a very good facility. Senator Newman —Tasmanian taxpayers pay the interest while you sit on your capital. Senator GRIMES —Not at all. Why should we not have a proper facility and why should we not build it at the proper rate and why should we not end up with it? Senator Newman —Why shouldn't we stick to the agreement. Senator GRIMES —For heavens sake! Senator Newman should come in here and give some facts. She should not just be an apologist for the difficulties of the State Government, which are perfectly understandable and reasonable difficulties. But let us no blame each other because of a bit of a delay in building a facility that we need. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.16) —The Minister shakes his head in sorrow. I do not want to be difficult and hold the Committee up like this, but I asked that question more than an hour ago and the previous Minister was asleep on the bench at the time. Senator Robertson —That is not so. That is incorrect. Senator NEWMAN —While Senator McIntosh spoke he was asleep in front of him. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.16) —We have a strange tradition in this place that we do not indulge in that sort of point scoring, but if the honourable senator wants to she can cop what is going to happen in the future. We have a system in the Senate where we have long examination of the estimates. The Committee stages of the Appropriation Bills are supposed to be about cleaning up details and are supposed to be about looking at total expenditure. The honourable senator is talking about, I think from memory, a total of $1m expenditure in Launceston. It is very important to her and to me, and I accept that, but in the totality of the Budget it is nonsense. We have been dealing with this Department for about an hour and a half. With due respect, when the honourable senator's side was in government if we had spent an hour and a half discussing the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism people would have been going off their brains and carrying on. The honourable senator has an answer. We are going to complete that facility which is a combined State-Federal facility. There will be delays on the Commonwealth side and the State side, and I am not denying that. But what on earth are we doing in here tonight arguing about minute points on that issue? Maybe it is important to the honourable senator, maybe it is important to me, but it is not important to the vast majority of people in this country. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.19) —I still have not had an answer to the question about the Tourism Advisory Council. Senator Grimes —You have not asked me that yet. Senator NEWMAN —I have, and I have asked the Minister's predecessor and I cannot get an answer. I would not have thought it was of such importance that the Minister would have to hide from it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.19) —I understand from my advisers that Senator Newman is complaining-and I have heard this before-that the Tourism Advisory Council does not have representation from each State. My response to that is, I think, the response that every Minister on both sides of the chamber has given, probably since Federation. It is not where they come from, it is the quality of the advice that they give that matters. I will seek from my colleague just why that is so. I suppose the fact that there is no Tasmanian on the Council is the problem. Senator Newman —Or Western Australian. Senator GRIMES —Or Western Australian. Senator Newman —Or South Australian. Senator GRIMES —Maybe the reason is that the best people are picked rather than choosing someone from each State. I will try to find out for the honourable senator. If she believes that every committee and every organisation of this type should have a representative from Tasmania, I ask her to think of probably the most powerful organisation in this country, the High Court of Australia. How long is it since a Tasmanian has been on that body? Who has picked all the High Court judges over the years? Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment Proposed expenditure, $193,300,000. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.20) —There are only a couple of matters which I wish to raise under the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. The first point I make is that those of us who are concerned with the way in which arts policy and arts funding will be handled in the course of the next 12 months or so are concerned about the changes which are taking place within the Australia Council. At the end of this year Professor Yerbury retires as the Chairman of the Australia Council. Whatever disagreements members of the Opposition may have had with the way in which Professor Yerbury's stewardship has been discharged, I think it would be churlish not to indicate, on behalf of the Opposition, that Professor Yerbury has nevertheless done a sterling job of changing the way in which the Australia Council has operated, and to formally record some degree of congratulations to her for the way in which, in a very difficult period, she has attempted to accommodate a number of quite diverse opinions about the way in which art should be funded. The fact that she has not done so in a way which is to the satisfaction of the Opposition is only to be expected. Undoubtedly it would be precisely the same if the boot were on the other foot. Nevertheless, the one thing I do want to record is that, during the Estimates committee hearings and during the discussions I have had in my capacity as Chairman of the Opposition's committee which deals with these matters, Professor Yerbury has been outstanding in the extent to which she has provided information and has attempted to ensure that the requests we made for information, for statistical material and all the rest were always met. I give very great credit to her and to the organisation that that material was provided and was always provided in a way commensurate with the requests we had made. I have no doubt that, when Mr Bourke takes over the administration of the Australia Council, this will continue. May I say on behalf of the Opposition that we look forward to working with him in that regard. I believe that he will have a very challenging time ahead in adjusting the operations of the Australia Council in the light of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, chaired by Mr Leo McLeay. We shall look forward not only to his response, but also to the Government's response to the McLeay report. I indicate the general endorsement which I certainly want to make of the thrust of the recommendations of that House of Representatives inquiry. My second point is in regard to the Australian Opera. Mr Veitch has now departed the byzantine politics of the Australian Opera. It has always occurred to me that, although professional politics is occasionally fairly rugged and brutal, there are two forms of politics which are considerably lower than professional politics; one is the politics of the arts and the other is the politics of universities. Senator Grimes —What about the medical profession? Senator PUPLICK —I have never been sufficiently closely associated with the medical profession to make such a judgment, but I am quite prepared to defer to Senator Grimes's greater expertise in that matter. One of the things which undoubtedly the Estimates Committees, in considering either the Supplementary Estimates or the Estimates next year, will want to know is the precise details of the financial settlement made with Mr Veitch. I am sure that Senator Grimes would agree that it is properly within the realm of Estimate Committees and of Parliament to require and to know precisely where large sums of Commonwealth money end up. We shall now watch with great interest to see who is to be handed the poisoned chalice of the Australian Opera in the foreseeable future. There is one other point I want to make in terms of puting on record the congratulations which I wish to extend to areas within this portfolio, and that is once again to record the work of the National Film and Sound Archive. I believe that this is a very important and significant investment of Commonwealth funds. I believe that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) is to be congratulated for the support which he has given to the Film and Sound Archive. I was very pleased to have the opportunity of attending the opening of its new branch office in Sydney. I am intrigued, in terms of the estimates, to note the acquisition program which it has been pursuing, in particular the acquisition of the very significant film entitled Showgirl's Luck, which was made in 1930 under the working title of Talkie Mad-which I presume is not necessarily to be taken as the appropriate title to be talking about in the Senate this evening-and was the first Australian film which actually used sound on film. I am delighted that the resources and expertise have been made available by the Film and Sound Archive to acquire this very valuable piece of cultural material for the national collection. I refer to one other film. It is a matter which gives me some degree of concern. That is the film which is currently entitled Death of a Soldier. This film has had a very chequered career. It appeared under a number of titles during its making, including the title The Brown out Murders and The Leonski Affair. It concerns the story of a United States soldier who was hanged in Australia for murders committed by that soldier, Private Leonski. It has been put to me-I think there is some evidence for the claim-that there has been a degree of outside pressure to prevent the public screening of this film, for two reasons: The first is that the film touches upon a matter which may, in fact, still be covered by the official secrets Act; that is, an incident which took place in Townsville in which a shoot out occurred between Australian and US service personnel and in which it is alleged up to 30 persons were killed. This is a matter which is not recorded in any of the official war histories as far as I am aware. It is a matter which has not been referred to in any of the documentation about Australian-US relationships. It is an incident which, to the best of my knowledge, is not commonly known about or frequently referred to in histories of Australia's participation in the Second World War. There is some degree of concern that there may have been pressure brought to bear to prevent the screening of this film because it contains scenes of this particular incident which may or may not still be subject to some degree of censorship under the official secrets Act. Another point about this film is-I have had the advantage, I might say, of seeing the film-that it certainly portrays the war time Australian Government in a particularly bad light in terms of its relationship with General Douglas MacArthur and the determination of General MacArthur to ensure the execution by way of example, as Admiral Byng found out, pour encourager les autres, despite the views of the Australian Government that executions should not take place, and in particular should not take place under the code of military justice which operated in the United States military at that time. The reason that this film is not available for public distribution is that it has been blackbanned by a number of Australian trade unions. Despite the fact that a very considerable amount of money has been invested in this enterprise-some of it public money through the operations of the Australian Film Commission, of course underwritten by taxpayers' funds in terms of the tax deductibility of investment in Australian films-the fact that the shooting of this film finished on 16 March 1985 and the fact that the company has had a great deal of trouble dealing with the Australian Film Commission, with Actors Equity of Australia and with various other theatrical and entertainment unions, the film has still not been released because there is a union black ban on it. Although the unions claim that in some ways this is related to a dispute about contract payments, I express a very great degree of concern that the Australian public is being denied the opportunity to see this film. It is a very good film, in my view. I believe that some explanations are required in that regard. I mention only two other matters arising under this portfolio. I know the Deputy Secretary of the Department, Mr Kerr, has already responded in terms of Estimates Committee E, but if one looks at the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations entitled `Non-Statutory Bodies' one will see that the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, by a long shot, takes the prize for the number of non-statutory bodies which operate within each ministerial portfolio. Of a total of 598 non-statutory bodies identified throughout the whole of the Australian Public Service, 71 operate within the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. The next largest number is 56 for the Department of Primary Industry and the Department of Aviation. The explanation for this is that basically these bodies are sub-committees of various ministerial working parties. But an opportunity exists for some degree of rationalisation and consolidation of ministerial working parties and advisory groups. I do not in any sense seek to criticise the existing Commonwealth-State committees. I am sure that the Department, having had this matter brought to its attention, must be at least making some effort to make bring about a rationalisation. I cannot imagine why 71 separate non-statutory bodies are required within the Department. Grounds for the consolidation of those bodies must surely exist. As far as other matters relating to this Department are concerned, I have had the opportunity of following the Department's estimates for a prolonged period. I formally go on the record as saying that the co-operation which the Estimates committees, and which I as Chairman of the relevant back bench committee, have received from the department, from its officers and from Mr Kerr, in particular, has always been extremely good. It has always been extremely good as far as Professor Ovington and the National Parks and Wildlife Service are concerned in terms of the provision of information. Although I have taken some time this evening to raise a number of matters, we have developed a system in the last couple of years of expediting the work of the Estimates committees by a fair amount of prior consultation between Opposition members and officers of the Department. Senator Reynolds, as Chairman of Estimates Committee D, will bear out the fact that a great deal of prior information has been provided by the Department which has been very helpful. I put those matters on record because I will be hoping to follow them up when the estimates of this Department are next before us or when the opportunity arises for any further ministerial information to be provided. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.34) —I thank Senator Puplick for the complimentary remarks he made about the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. I will refer the matter of the film Death of a Soldier to the Department. I firmly believe in Hiram Johnson's comment that the first casualty of war is truth. If I really wanted to be pretentious I could quote Voltaire and say that to the living we owe our good wishes; to the dead we owe nothing but the truth. They are important quotations in coping with this sort of situation. If it is true, as Senator Puplick says, that this film is not being shown because of pressure from trade unions or any other body, I believe that is wrong. I believe that it is important that we know the truth of our history, warts and all. Therefore, I will take a personal interest in any response that may come from the Department. I think Senator Puplick knows that the matter of the number of non-statutory bodies operating within the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment and the potential consolidation of such bodies and committees is being looked at by the Department at the moment. In view of his committee's good relationship with the Department, I hope that he will be satisfied with the responses he gets in the near future. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(9.36) —I want to make a few comments on the funding by the Australia Council of various groups, particularly the trade unions of Australia, but also some of the other more radical groups in our community. Before doing so, I publicly congratulate Senator Puplick on his remarks and all the work he has put in over a lengthy period in this area, not only on behalf of our side of politics but also in the wider context. The work that he does with the Estimates committees and in the broader context is something on which we all congratulate him and for which we thank him. The purport of my comments is to consider funding by the Australia Council, particularly of trade unions, and, within that context, funding under the art and working life program of the Council. Grants to trade unions under this program alone now total almost $3m of taxpayers' funds. So we are looking at something that is very significant, not in dollar terms, but in terms of raising some broader issues which I hope the Minister and the Government will address. Within that broad heading I want to raise two particular issues. The first issue is the appropriateness of this funding. The second issue, flowing from the first, is the principle by which the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment of the day stands at arm's length from the details of individual grants. If one looks at some of the grants that have been made to the trade union movement during the life of the art and working life program in recent years one finds some grants which I believe the average Australian taxpayer would be staggered to find his money being spent on. I shall go through a few of them. The Amalgamated Metal Workers Union of Western Australia received a grant of $15,000 for a regional music co-ordinator. The Australian Insurance Employees Union in Victoria received $16,000 for a print maker in residence and an artist in residence. The Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation-which has now been deregistered following actions by this Government supported by the Opposition-has received in excess of $50,000 for similar activities under this program. To give some examples of those activities, $13,000 was received for artists' fees; $12,000 was received for a mural project a couple of years ago and a further $18,000 was received for similar purposes in the following year. As I said, the total amount received is in excess of $52,000. The Combined Union Arts Committee at Williamstown Naval Dockyard in Victoria has received $5,500, mainly for an arts and working life project and for a mural project at the Williamstown Naval Dockyard. It received the grant not all that long before employees had been retrenched at the dockyard because of a lack of sufficient activity. The Musicians Union of Australia in Western Australia has done very well over the last couple of years. It received $23,500 for a jazz co-ordinator and for a writer-in-residence. Senator Grimes —Tell me what is wrong with that. State specifically what is wrong with that. Senator SHORT —That is the point I want to come back to in a moment. I am just giving a few examples. If the Minister is quiet, I will raise the matter again with him. The Victoria Trades Hall Council has received several hundred thousand dollars in the last three years, again for artists-in-residence and artists-in-the-community activities. Actors Equity of Australia has received $22,000 for a printmaker-in-residence and for artists-in-residence and for materials for a poster project. The Australian Council of Trade Unions in Victoria received $41,000 for a book of songs of working Australians project and for an arts festival committee for a working life arts festival. On it goes. The Australian Telecommunications Employees Association received $30,000 for three artists-in-residence and an artist-in-residence graphic project. The Food Preservers Union of Australia, one of the most extreme left wing militant unions, received $8,272 to enable its members to attend leadlight and ceramics classes. It received $10,000 the following year for craft activities. It has been given yet another grant of $5,000 for similar activities in recent months. The Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia received $115,000 for writers-in-residence, community-in-workplace theatre projects, community murals and a community theatre project. Senator Grimes —Come on, give us some reasons why you do not like them. Senator SHORT —The Minister should be patient. The Labour Council of New South Wales received $24,000 for a lyricist/musician-in-residence, for a composer/musician-in-residence and for a songwriter-in-residence at the Chullora workshops, and for an employee participation play for work sites and schools. On and on it goes. These grants add up to $3m. The point I raise is the appropriateness of taxpayers' funds being used to fund organisations such as the trade union movement as distinct from the trade union movement funding its own activities. Although I am levelling this criticism at Government expenditure on the trade union movement I would like make exactly the same point if such funding were to go to employer organisations or similar groups in the community. Senator Grimes —But it is. Senator SHORT —It is not. I understand that the criterion under the art and working life program is such that the activity has to be a trade union-related activity or the grant either cannot be applied for or will not be granted. Senator Michael Baume —You cannot get it in a non-union shop. Senator SHORT —That is right. So the whole program is absolutely and totally directed and biased towards the trade union movement. The significance is that this funding is very much given to enable certain groups in the community to get a privileged position in relation to the use of taxpayers' funds that other groups cannot get. It is quite evident from the nature of the grants that have been given over recent years that there is also a bias within the trade union movement. The overwhelming bulk of funds that have been granted, for whatever reason, have gone to the more extreme sections of the trade union movement, including the Builders Labourers Federation, which I mentioned recently and which the Government has played a major part, with Opposition support, in deregistering because of its wanton activities. The problem with this type of activity, and this is what I want the Minister to comment on, is that it goes to the core of reducing the independence of the arts. That is very damaging because the cultural and artistic life and development of this country depend essentially on the arts maintaining their independence and integrity. For organisations such as the trade union movement, the purposes of which have nothing at all to do with artistic endeavours but with industrial matters, or for employer or similar organisations to be funded with taxpayers' money for artistic-type activities makes those organisations beholden to government and destroys the integrity and independence of the cultural and artistic life that the grants ostensibly are aimed towards. By giving funds not only to the trade union movement but to radical groups such as Women for Survival, for example, which is radical and feminist and whose membership is formally affiliated with the Socialist Workers Party and other communist peace groups, the Federal Government is diverting taxpayers' funds to undermine its own policies. For example, the Pine Gap bases, which are vital to Australia's defences, have been subject to sit-ins and campaigns by this group which was represented opposite Parliament House recently. In the time available I will mention one other grant because it raises very serious issues of principle, particularly for the whole question of arm's length funding for the arts. I refer to the grant in October 1985 by the Australian Council, through the Community Arts Board, of $5,000 to the Palestine Information Office for a cultural exhibition. It is common knowledge that the Palestine Information Office is the Australian headquarters of the terrorist organisation, the Palestine Liberation Organisation. It is widely reported that the man who heads that office, Mr Ali Kazak, is a direct appointee of Yasser Arafat, the leader of the PLO in the MIddle East. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, in response to a question as to why that grant was provoked, stated categorically: There is no PLO office in this country. Yet Mr Kazak displays no confusion about his organisation's role in Australia and its links with the PLO. In an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program, the World Today, he described the office in the following way. He said: Well, it is like an embassy, like any other PLO offices around the world. We have over 100 offices and embassies around the world. The Minister went on to justify the grant of $5,000 on the ground that intervention to stop that grant would have violated the principles of arm's length funding and peer group assessment. Mr Cohen added that the Palestine Information Office merely represents one of the ethnic communities in Australia, some of which have also received funds from the Australia Council. The spirit, if not the letter, of the Minister's response is, in effect: Who cares whether the political values and activities, indeed the whole raison d'etre, of groups at the end of government handouts are revolutionary, aimed at promoting terrorism, the whittling away of democratic principles or what have you? The principle of arm's length funding is that one does not worry about such things. Who cares whether the Government uses taxpayers' money to support a terrorist organisation such as the PLO in Australia? According to the Minister, the boards of the Australia Council are made up of artists with specialist expertise, so there is no need for the Minister to intervene. With some of the examples of the funding provided by the Arts Council in the last two or three years, the very considerable question of the responsibility of the relevant Minister of the government of the day is raised in my mind and whether there are certain groups and activities in our community about which the Minister ought to have the responsibility and capacity to say: `This is not an organisation which should receive funding from taxpayers' funds'. The purposes of the funding-it is for a cultural exhibition in the case of the Palestine Information Office-is irrelevant. The simple fact is that providing taxpayers' funds to that type of activity frees up the funds of that organisation to be used in other ways. I think it raises a very important issue of principle. We are talking about a lot of money, but more importantly we are talking about values within our community. I wonder whether the Minister, in his later remarks, will care to comment on some of those things. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.51) —I should like to comment on them right now. Senator Short's address was made up of two parts. I think it is important to remember that. In the first part he talked about the importance of the arm's length funding, the independence and integrity of the Australia Council. He said that we were in some way violating that because the Australia Council was funding trade unions. He described them as left wing trade unions. He then complained that we did not interfere when the same body funded organisations such as the Palestinian organisation that he talked about. I feel very strongly about this issue. We need consistency about it in this place. I remind Senator Short of something that he did not mention; that is, that the arts in working life program, under which these projects were funded, was established by the Australia Council in September 1982 under the Fraser Government. It was certainly not complained about by the Fraser Government. Trade unions were funded under the Fraser Government in the same circumstances. I personally have no objection to trade unions being funded for this purpose. Senator Short mentioned some $3m for all the things he was talking about. I do not hear anyone in this place complaining about the $4m or $5m we spend on the Australian Opera or the $5m we spend on the Australian Ballet Company. I have no objection to it. Some of the people who support the opera and the ballet are trade union members. For instance, Laurie Carmichael is a great supporter of the opera, the ballet and those sorts of things. The very large subsidies that are provided to the opera enable people such as Dame Joan Sutherland to get $1m-I think that is what it was-out of the Australian Opera in the last couple of years. There is never any complaint about that but there is a complaint about the $15,000 spent by the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union for music and the $15,000 spent by the Building Workers Industrial Union to produce murals and music. We are talking about a few thousand dollars being spent by some trade union which wants to encourage its members to have some training in leadlighting or something that Senator Short made some derisory remarks about. It seems to me that if we spend a pittance on providing some cultural activities for working class people or people in trade unions it is a crime but if we spend millions of dollars to provide a great subsidy to the Australian Opera-providing a couple of million dollars for Dame Joan Sutherland, whom I have great admiration for-it is perfectly all right. This is the great inconsistency. Senator Michael Baume —Don't trade unionists go to the opera? Senator GRIMES —Of course they go to the opera. I said that earlier. Laurie Carmichael is a great example of someone who attends and likes opera. It seems that it is perfectly all right to spend $5m on opera alone but it is not all right to spend a couple of million dollars on trade unions supporting their members getting some cultural activities. Is that what the problem is? Senator Michael Baume —Can I go to a trade union workshop? Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator can. Senator Baume can come to the city which has received great publicity in the last couple of days because of Senator Newman and me to see a very good mural which has been put up by the trade union movement. Everyone enjoys it; everyone likes it. Senator Short —Why should it be paid for with taxpayers' money? Senator GRIMES —Why should we pay out of taxpayers' money a huge subsidy to the Australian Opera? Senator Short —Because the Australian Opera and Australian Ballet have as their whole purpose for being the arts and culture in this country. That is not the purpose of the trade union movement. Senator GRIMES —Oh, good! So the criterion of funding is that we should fund only those organisations whose sole purpose is to provide ballet, opera or cultural activities. If that is the criterion that Senator Short puts down why did the previous Government not have that policy? Senator Short was a supporter of the previous Government. Why was he not up screaming when the art in working life program was introduced? Why was he not up complaining about that? Senator Short —Because I was not here. Senator GRIMES —Was Senator Short complaining outside? Senator Michael Baume was an advisor to the previous Government. Was he complaining at the time? Senator Michael Baume —No, because it has been corrupted. It has good objectives and it has been corrupted by your lot. Senator GRIMES —That is an outrageous statement and Senator Baume knows it. Trade unions were funded by his Government under this program. But any trade union that he does not like that is funded is apparently an example of corruption. Senator Newman —Why is it a closed shop? Why do you not answer? Senator GRIMES —It is not a closed shop. There is no way it is a closed shop. The guidelines were set up under the previous Government and it is not a closed shop now. The Palestinian group that Senator Short was talking about is not a closed shop. It is not a trade union movement. I may disagree very strongly with individual grants under this program and I may get up in this chamber and say so-I am not arguing with the right of honourable senators to do that-but honourable senators opposite are complaining in general about the whole program because grants go to the trade union movement. I could make a big class issue and ask: `Why should funds go to an organisation run by Lady Fairfax or some such person?'. I do not do that and I would not do that because I think that that is a reasonable and sensible organisation to fund. But honourable senators opposite are talking about a couple of million dollars going to organisations that are trying to provide culture-trying to provide a bit of music-to ordinary people in this country yet they are not complaining about tens of millions of dollars going in funding which is largely provided to those from the higher socio-economic groups in this community. We have to be a bit consistent in this area. I remember that at the time of the 1967 war the Israeli Government spent a considerable amount of money-Don Dunstan often cites this-providing instruments for the Tel Aviv Symphony Orchestra. The argument at the time was that even though the war and the survival of the Israelis was important, what would happen after the war and their survival was also important. So proper instruments were provided for the orchestra. I think it is important that in this community we realise that arts and culture are not only the prerogative of the rich. We should use any opportunity we can to provide funding to extend arts and culture to those who do not have the background and the wealth to attend the opera, who do not have the $20, $30 or $40 for the cost of attending concerts at the Sydney Opera House. Why should we not subsidise such people? The previous Government did not subsidise such programs for party political purposes; it subsidised them to ensure that in some way the ordinary people of this country had exposure to the arts and culture generally. We are doing that. If the AMWU and the BWIU happen to be organisations doing that-if at the time the Builders Labourers Federation was the organisation doing that-they should be funded. If some mistakes were made and some funding went in the wrong direction, I ask honourable senators: So what? It is better to have that happen, and it is better not to make political capital out of that, than it is to have exposure to the arts and culture in this country confined to those who are wealthy enough to view it. If we withdrew our support for the arts and culture across the board on the basis that Senator Short was talking about, very few people would be able to attend the opera, very few people would be able to attend the ballet and very few people would be able to attend concerts. I do not think that is the sort of society that we want. Senator Short can make his little whinge about the AMWU or other organisations that he does not think should receive a bit of funding, but if he does not like the way it is being done now and he did not like the way it was done by the previous Government, he should give some alternatives. He never gives any alternatives. He claims that every act of the present Government-and, by definition, every act of the previous Government in this area-was a political act aimed at supporting the Left. That is nonsense, and he knows it is nonsense. I feel very sad that somebody such as Senator Short has done that. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.01) —During the Estimates Committee D hearing relating to the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, a number of matters arose in relation to Kakadu National Park. I will not retrace the arguments and debates that took place during that hearing, but Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Puplick, Senator Durack and Senator Collard had much to say about the matter. Of course, the questions were: What is the future of Kakadu stage 2 and the possibility of Kakadu stage 3? Is there going to be multi-use? Will there be an opportunity to test for the presence of what is to be a national asset-the minerals in the ground? Following those discussions during the Estimates Committee hearing, I wish to ask some questions which relate specifically to the Federal Government's intention to seek World Heritage listing of stage 2. Following the failure of the Federal Government to consult the Northern Territory Government over World Heritage listing, the Northern Territory Government has taken a delegation to Paris-this is public knowledge, of course-hopefully, to appear before the World Heritage Committee to put its own case on the matter. The first question which arises is in relation to whether the Federal Government considers the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers agreement of 1984 regarding World Heritage listing requires it to consult. I would appreciate the Minister's response to this: Does the Federal Government stand by the agreement reached at that meeting that the Federal Government will consult relevant State and Territory governments before seeking to add areas to the World Heritage List? Apparently it does not, but I and many others would be interested to have the Government's intention in regard to this matter made known. If so, what steps specifically did the Federal Government take to consult the Northern Territory Government over the listing of Kakadu? What meetings were held? Who was present? What papers or submissions were sought from the Northern Territory Government? Given that the decision has been taken by the Federal Government to proceed with World Heritage listing, in spite of the Opposition of the Northern Territory Government, does the Federal Government intend to assist the Northern Territory in putting its case to the World Heritage Committee? Given that the Federal Government offered the Tasmanian Government an opportunity to put its case in relation to the Franklin River, does the Federal Government regard the Northern Territory's right to put its case as any less valid than Tasmania's right in the Franklin case? If, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has stated, he believes that article 34 of the World Heritage Convention means that the Committee can deal only with national governments-this was stated in a telex to the Northern Territory Government-but under article 10 (2) the Committee is able to ask for the views of interested parties, will the Federal Government agree to support the Northern Territory Government's right to put its case in accordance with article 10 (2), as I have said, in keeping with the spirit of the Convention, giving the Territory and interested parties a fair go? If the Federal Government is not prepared to give this support, can it say whether that is because it is concerned that a delegation from the Northern Territory Government would show up the fact that much of Kakadu stage 2 is not worthy of World Heritage listing? It has been said-and, I believe, substantiated-that up to 75 per cent, according to eminent conservationists Harry Butler and Professor Kenneth Mellanby, is not worthy of listing, as I have indicated. Has the Federal Government adopted the operational guidelines set out in the World Heritage Convention which require each party to submit tentative inventories of properties which it intends to nominate during the following five to 10 years? I think these are reasonable questions to ask following the debate which, of course, has occurred not only during Estimates committee hearings; it has proved to be a national debate among many people in all parts of Australia and in the media. People have put forward their viewpoints. I ask the Minister: Will the Federal Government give an unequivocal undertaking to assist the Northern Territory Government in putting its views to the World Heritage Committee, as I have just said, bearing in mind the Territory's right to make representations as an interested party in accordance with article 10 (2) of the World Heritage Convention? We have heard much from the Prime Minister in the last few weeks, with his toing and froing. My final question, of course, is this: Has the Prime Minister now reconsidered his stance on the matter? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.07) —A Federal Court case is listed, I think, for tomorrow, dealing with the rights of the Federal Government in this area. I do not want to traverse that and get into trouble for interfering in a Federal Court case. It is my understanding that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has offered to facilitate the capacity of the Northern Territory Government to give a written submission concerning the World Heritage listing of this area. I am sorry to inform Senator Kilgariff that this is a national matter. The Government will consider the views of the Northern Territory Government, and will facilitate the Northern Territory Government in giving its views in written form. But if the Northern Territory Government, as it is funded very generously by the Federal Government, wishes to ride roughshod over the Federal Government in this area, I am afraid that we cannot be considered to be in a position to give it the facilities to do as it pleases in this area. This is a national issue, as was the Franklin issue, as was demonstrated by the High Court of Australia decision in the Franklin issue. I do not want to say much more than that as the matter is before the Federal Court of Australia and I do not want to be in the position of being accused of attempting to influence the Federal Court-not that I think that I could. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.09) —I must respond briefly to Senator Grimes's comments following my earlier contribution. I do not know whether it was deliberate or otherwise, but Senator Grimes completely misrepresented the point I was making. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he misunderstood what I was saying. I was not for one moment suggesting that arts funding by way of taxpayers' funds should go only to the wealthy. I did not mention that-quite the opposite. What I want to see is the widest possible participation by and benefit to the community in the development of arts and culture in this country. My point is that that cannot happen when funds go to a closed shop situation in the form of the trade unions through the Arts Council's arts and working life program. That is a closed shop situation and that is what I am objecting to. The point that was related to that and that I was making, which Senator Grimes appears to have misunderstood, was that the difference between funding with taxpayers' money, say the opera, the ballet or any other arts or cultural group in the community, is that the whole raison d'etre of those organisations is arts and culture. The purpose of the trade union movement is industrial and political. I repeat what I said in my earlier remarks, which again Senator Grimes does not seem to have understood; that the point I made about the funding of the trade union movement I would make in exactly the same way if the Business Council of Australia sought money to fund a muralist or artist in residence. That is not the purpose of the Business Council of Australia, just as the purpose of the trade union movement is not to receive taxpayers' funds for artistical or cultural purposes. If those organisations want to engage in those activities for their members, by all means let them do so. That is their privilege and prerogative, but not with taxpayers' money. A large amount of this money that has been going through the Arts Council to the trade union movement has been going to some of the wealthiest unions in Australia. The Amalgamated Metal Workers Union's funds are now almost $15m. Only 10 or 12 years ago its funds were $2m. Why should an organisation that has nothing to do with arts or culture, and which is wealthy beyond the dreams of most trade unions or most other groups in our community, receive taxpayers' money to fund such projects as muralists or artists in residence. That is the point I was making and Senator Grimes completely ignored or misrepresented it. He also totally misrepresented me on the point I made in relation to arm's length funding. I was not arguing necessarily one way or the other in terms of whether the way arm's length funding is now practised is good or bad. I would agree with Senator Grimes if what he was saying was that there is a conflict there. There is a dilemma if a Minister can involve himself or herself in individual grant applications as there is scope and possibility for political patronage, or whatever one might want to call it, entering into the issue when we would not otherwise want it to do so. I fully appreciate that point but I think there is also the other side of the case to be considered, and that is whether the government of the day, which has responsibility for arts policy and all other areas of policy, should have the right to intervene in particular cases where applications for taxpayers' funds come from organisations whose activities or values are completely the antithesis of the values and aspirations of our society. I put it to the Committee that I believe very fervently that there is not one iota of justification for taxpayers' money and Australian governments to fund the activities of the Palestine Information Office in this country and the Palestine Liberation Organisation which it says it represents in this country. If arm's length funding is the sole principle in this area, one faces that dilemma. I suggest to the Minister and to the Government that the policy of arm's length funding be looked at to take account of that sort of situation. I am not pushing it any further than that. I am just saying that I believe it is an issue to which we all need to give further consideration. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.15) —The comments made by Senator Grimes about the art and working life program need correcting because they were totally at odds with the truth. He said that there was no closed shop approach in the art and working life program. That is simply false and I can quote from the Senate Estimates Committee D Hansard to demonstrate its falsity. I asked Professor Yerbury, the Chief Executive of the Australia Council at the time, this question: If there were employees of a non-union shop who took the view that they would like to join together to put out a banner which was opposed to compulsory unionism, would that be fundable through the arts and working life program? Mr Adams interjected and responded: I doubt it actually because I think there is quite an explicit requirement that there must be union involvement in the art and working life program. That is one of the criteria. I asked: In a sense, to get money out of this program there is a form of compulsory unionism? Professor Yerbury answered: Not at all. I asked: You must be in a union to get money? Mr Adams replied: There are many other programs that could be applied for, for the same sorts of-- In other words it is clear and uncomplicated from the testimony at the Senate Estimates Committee that the criteria involve being a member of a union and that it is not available to a non-union shop. For the Minister to come into this chamber and simply mislead the chamber is incredible in respect of this kind of program when clearly he purports to know something about it. Certainly he has opinions about it, based clearly on error. I put to Professor Yerbury that if an employer, for example, took the view that the art and working life program would be appropriate for his purposes and would enable him to employ an artist to perhaps convey in the work place the message that capitalism is good, that profit is not a dirty word and so on, would that fit within the guidelines of the art and working life program and would he receive funds. Professor Yerbury went on about how unlikely it would be that anyone would put that up in the first place. The reason that I find this corruption of the art and working life program to be so offensive is that when the Fraser Government set out on this course of having an art and working life program, which I might say was something like one quarter the financial size of what it is today, as I understand the concept, it was wanting to use unions for the purpose of the arts. It was to convey the arts into the working place. It was to use unions for the purpose of the arts. Under this Government this program involves using the arts for the purpose of the unions, for spreading a message and for involving itself in a political polemic. To demonstrate that, let me quote what Deborah Mills, the co-ordinator of the Australia Council's art and working life program, said in publications about this very subject which clearly underlines the fact that the union movement is using this program for its own polemic purposes. Deborah Mills, from the Australia Council, was involved in a publication which had this to say: Employer organisations have armies of public relations consultants to do the job for them. The current barrage of anti-union messages has had an effect. The art and working life program can help unions . . . This publication, which has the support of the Australia Council and which was co-ordinated by an employee, Deborah Mills, clearly says that the purpose of the program is to counter the armies of public relations consultants from the employer organisations. Professor Yerbury's response was that that was just to encourage unions to participate in the program. One cannot get away with this sort of thing. Certainly one cannot get away with what the Minister is saying because it is simply untrue, according to the statements by the art and working life program people. I note that the Art and Working Life publication, which is a joint publication of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council and of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, speaks of not fitting unions to artists ideals but fitting artists to trade union needs. That is stated in the publication. It seems incredible that the Minister is unaware of all that or that he is unaware of the same publication stating: The anti-union crusades of recent years, both political and mass media, have tried to limit the role of unions, effectively denying the reality of their culture. They must first have the conditions to develop freely. An aim of the art and working life program should be to support such conditions within the labour movement. If the art and working life program is to bring the arts into the union environment, to bring arts into the working place, that would be what the Fraser Government was all about. It was not about helping unions to combat the `current barrage of anti-union messages' as claimed by this publication. When one looks at what has been happening, there has been a clear corruption of this program so that it is not serving its initial purpose. Let us look at what sort of money and programs are involved. I think Senator Short mentioned something like $3m. I would think in the long run the figure overall is much more than that one way or another. Under the community employment program-the long term unemployment program-as I recall it, something like $40m is being spent on the arts in one form or another. I would imagine that a very large proportion of that program, although the Government is very coy about telling us anything about it, has ended up in this and similar sorts of programs. Some $43m-odd makes the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations probably an even greater patron of the arts, after one takes out a couple of mainstream operations such as the opera, the ballet and so on, than the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. Senator Short —Barry Cohen himself has said that. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As the honourable senator says, Barry Cohen has admitted that. In addition, we have been able to establish that $1.4m went direct to trade unions and made them patrons of the arts for their own purposes, not for the purposes of the arts, encouraging people to write plays and so on. I have details of one play called Insecurity, which I mentioned to the Minister the other day. We were not able to attend that play because it was an in-house play. Senator Grimes —Is it reasonable for us to forgo revenue and to allow private companies to make tax claims for their contributions to the arts? If it is reasonable to do so, is it not reasonable to allow the trade unions to undertake activities in the arts area for their own purposes? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The Minister's analogy is appallingly bad. Senator Grimes —Revenue forgone is the same as revenue expended. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Yes, and if members of the trade union movement wish to make donations to deductible artistic ventures they can get a tax deduction. The whole point is that there is a specific and clear diversion of money away from the traditional and arts-oriented arts, if you like, to the people who are using the arts as a polemic, as part of their purpose-- Senator Grimes —Knock it off. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The Minister says `nonsense' and yet I have quoted to him what the Department is saying about the purpose of this operation. It speaks not of fitting unions to artists' ideals but of fitting artists to trade union needs. Talk about thoughtspeak! The Minister knows perfectly well that with the unions now being patrons of the arts-probably the major patrons of the arts beyond the mainstream groups because of this program-unless the artists fit the trade union, unless they go along that line, they are not acceptable under this program. There is no other possible interpretation of those words. There are many other matters I want to raise about this program but I understand that other honourable senators wish to speak very briefly. I simply conclude at the moment by saying that there are many other programs under which money is going in this area and which are not shown in the union list, for example, groups such as Side Track Theatre and many other theatres which receive funding under the art and working life program. Multi-millions of dollars are being diverted in this way for a particular polemic, and I oppose it. Progress reported. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.28) —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- Mr President, this Bill continues the practice of introducting an omnibus Bill into each sittings of the Parliament as an expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious amendments to legislation not otherwise being amended. Some of the amendments made by this Bill tidy up, correct and up-date existing legislation. Other amendments are of minor policy significance or are matters of routine administration. None of the amendments made by the Bill has any significant financial impact. However, the amendments of the Migration Act 1958 are expected to result in a marginal increase in revenue in the long term. Many of the proposed amendments will be self-evident or sufficiently explained by the Explanatory Memorandum circulated with the Bill. I propose to confine my comments to addressing the more noteworthy changes included in this Bill. Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952 At present a statutory lien for the payment of outstanding charges can only cease to have effect if all the outstanding charges are paid or the aircraft is seized and held by the Commonwealth. The amendments provide the power for a lien to be lifted in other circumstances where continued existence of the lien is no longer appropriate. An example of such circumstances would be where all outstanding debts have been waived or written off. Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act 1933 Australian Antarctic Territory Act 1954 Christmas Island Act 1958 Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 Coral Sea Islands Act 1969 Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act 1953 Norfolk Island Act 1979 Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 Amongst other things, these Acts provide that the Governor-General may make Ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the Territories. The Ordinances are subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. The Acts provide that where an Ordinance repeals another Ordinance and the repealing Ordinance is disallowed then the repealed Ordinance is revived. As the Acts currently stand, where the disallowed Ordinance repealed a law other than an Ordinance, then the disallowance does not result in the revival of the repealed law. Important areas of the law in force in the Territories are not contained in Ordinances and, accordingly, if such a law were to be repealed by an Ordinance which is subsequently disallowed, a gap in the relevant Territory's law could result. The fact that disallowance of the repealing Ordinance does not, in these circumstances, revive the former law also detracts from the effectiveness of disallowance. The Bill amends the Acts in question so that any law which is repealed by an Ordinance will be revived upon disallowance of the repealing Ordinance. Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933 The proposed amendment will enable the ACT Ordinance to authorise the Judges of the ACT Supreme Court to make Rules of Court on particular matters. The amendment will remove legal doubts that arose recently in two cases as to the extent of the current rule-making power conferred on the Supreme Court Judges under the Act in respect of matters arising from the vesting of jurisdiction in the Court by Ordinance. The Act authorises such conferral of jurisdiction by Ordinance. Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972 The Act currently provides for a Council consisting of a Chairman and 4 members to govern the Institute. It also provides for a Director to manage the affairs of the Institute subject to the general direction of the Council. The Director is accountable to Council on all matters involving the Institute including managerial and administrative matters. As chief manager of the Institute, the Director is the executive arm of Council and should therefore be an ex-officio member of Council. The amendments now provide for the Director to be included as an ex-officio member of the Council of the Institute. Australian Trade Commission Act 1985 At present, the Australian Trade Commission may insure the direct overseas investment of an Australian organisation against losses due to war, expropriation, or foreign exchange transfer blockage. The main purpose of the proposed amendments is to allow the Commission to extend this form of insurance to Australian organisations where the overseas investment is made indirectly via a foreign subsidiary or corporation in which the Australian organisation has a substantial shareholding. Bankruptcy Act 1966 The amendments to this Act proposed in the Bill are designed to improve the administration of bankruptcy. The Official Trustee is restructured from a corporation aggregate into a corporation sole vested in the Secretary to the Department for the time being administering the Act, presently my Department. This will enable the performance of the trustee function by the Official Trustee to be more effectively managed and its procedures to be streamlined. The Federal Court of Australia will also be empowered to delegate certain of its powers under the Bankruptcy Act to Registrars of the Court. The Federal Court is already able to delegate its powers in jurisdictions other than bankruptcy. Similarly, the Family Court of Australia is able to delegate certain of its powers to Registrars of that Court. Experience has shown that such provisions permit considerable freeing up of judicial time enabling resources to be devoted to more complex disputes between litigants rather than spent on minor procedural and interlocutory matters. Biological Control Act 1984 The purpose of the proposed amendments is to bring the Commonwealth Act into line with the co-operative Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory scheme on biological control. Each State and the Northern Territory will establish a biological control authority and the Act will be amended so that the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 will apply to declarations under each of the complementary State/Northern Territory Acts. Complementary State legislation has now been passed in the Victorian, New South Wales, Tasmanian and South Australian Parliaments. The aim of the Act will continue to be one of establishing procedures for assessing and, where appropriate, authorising biological control programs in Australia. The decision-making process presently being followed will not be changed by the amendments and the direct cost to the Commonwealth for salaries and administration are not expected to be increased by the amendments. Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 The proposed amendments will enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute proceedings in relation to offences against the applied provisions of State laws committed on Commonwealth places in the States. The amendments will also enable the Director to carry on such proceedings when they have been instituted by Commonwealth officials. They will include proceedings instituted by members or special members of the Australian Federal Police. Such proceedings may currently be instituted or carried on by State prosecutors. The right of State authorities to institute or carry on proceedings in respect of offences against applied State laws will not be affected. Copyright Act 1968 The amendment will clarify the definition of `broadcast', which was modified by the Copyright Amendment Act 1986 passed last Sittings. Interested groups have submitted that the wording inserted by that Act is ambiguous, and does not express the Government's intention that `broadcast', in this context, should cover transmissions to the copyright owner's public, whether the `general' public or part of the public. Following consultations there is agreement with the policy and wording of the proposed new definition. Crimes Act 1914 The amendment makes it clear that the Act does not, and was never intended to, limit the operation of any Territory law relating to search in connection with offences against any law of that Territory. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Act 1978 The amendments are being made to overcome certain practical difficulties associated with the administration of levy payment and disbursement. The need for these amendments arises from relatively recent legal interpretations of the Act. To enable the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation to continue to distribute equalisation payments to producers through the packing establishments that first received the fruit for processing, the concept of a packer is being amended so that it no longer includes the establishments that remove seeds from raisins on behalf of the original packing establishment. The need for this change arises from the fact that the `deseeding' establishments do not have records which would allow them to pass on equalisation payments to individual producers. Consequential amendments deal with the circumstances in which fruit is regarded as being in the custody of the packer. Other amendments are being made to ensure that equalisation levy rates can be set late in the season without excluding fruit which leaves the custody of a packer early in the season from the penalty provisions for non-payment of the equalisation levy. At present, interest which accrues on equalisation moneys held in trust by packers prior to disbursement to individual entitled producers must be returned to the Corporation. Amendments are being made to provide that such interest is to be passed on by packers to those producers in proportion to their individual entitlements to the principal sum. The proposed amendments have the support of the Australian Dried Fruits Association, the principal industry representative body, and the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation. Family Law Act 1975 Australia presently has reciprocal arrangements for enforcement of maintenance orders with 29 states of the United States of America. However those arrangements only apply to final orders of US courts. The scheme which operates within the USA by virtue of the enactment by all States of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act does not allow for the making of orders if the respondent is not present within the jurisdiction. Instead, a ``petition for support'' is obtained from a court in the claimant's state and remitted to the respondent's state for hearing. This amendment will enable the regulations to make provision for courts having jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to accept petitions for maintenance remitted by courts of the US States that conclude reciprocal arrangements with Australia, and for Australian courts to make orders in respect of such petitions. Insurance Act 1973 It is proposed to make a number of amendments of a minor or machinery nature, the more significant of which relate to the solvency requirements. They will make it clear that current account balances due from related bodies corporate are not to be regarded as assets for solvency purposes unless they have been approved by the Insurance Commissioner for this purpose. Also, assets otherwise subject to such approval of the Insurance Commissioner cannot be placed outside this requirement through the use of trusts. The amendments also provide that, for the purposes of the required solvency margin, the value of shares held by an authorised insurer in an authorised related body corporate is to be reduced by an amount that is equivalent to the solvency margin, per share, of that related insurer. Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 The proposed amendments are, in the main, designed to clarify a number of provisions and overcome certain difficulties that have been identified in the operation of the Act with a view to avoiding the imposition of unnecessary administrative costs. The proposed clarifications relate to the nature of misrepresentation, the acceptability and scope of the professional indemnity cover required for registered brokers and the provision of information. The amendments designed to overcome administrative difficulties relate to dealings with Lloyd's brokers, the provision of receipts, especially where premiums are paid by instalments, and the remission of premiums to insurers. Other proposals permit brokers to deposit funds with building societies and require brokers acting as agents of insurers under other than binding agreements to advise intending insureds. Insurance Contracts Act 1984 The proposed amendments are designed to clarify certain provisions and reduce unnecessary administrative costs in complying with the Act. The proposed clarifications aim to remove any uncertainty regarding the right of an insured to recover an amount greater than the amount of a loss, cover the position where more than one interest-holder is involved in a claim on an insurer and make it clear that notices regarding renewal should be provided even where a broker is acting for the insured. The administrative changes relate, in the main, to the scope of the requirement to provide certain notices each time a contract is renewed, extended or varied. Migration Act 1958 In April 1986 it was announced that the Government intended to introduce a more flexible re-entry policy for migrants. The new policy, to be introduced from 1 January 1987, will allow migrants multiple re-entry to Australia without having to reside in Australia for 12 months to obtain a re-entry visa. The amendments will make it clear that different charges can be fixed for processing the new ``resident re-entry visas'' compared with other visas. It is anticipated that the net effect of the implementation of new policy, in terms of revenue, will be a marginally reduced level of revenue in the transitional fiscal year of operation. However, in the longer term, it is expected that revenue will increase. The amendments will also extend the operation of the Act to the Territory of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and to the Coral Sea Islands Territory. Ombudsman Act 1976 These are minor administrative amendments designed to delete obsolete provisions and to clarify the existing powers of the Ombudsman to decline to investigate certain complaints. They will also enable the Ombudsman to make preliminary enquiries when considering investigating action of his own motion, and to obtain information and documents from an agency when he does not know the identity of the officer holding the information or documents. In addition, the power to make acting appointments of Deputy Ombudsman is transferred from the Governor-General to the Minister to expedite the making of such appointments. Postal Services Act 1975 The Special Premiers Conference on Drugs agreed on 2 April 1985 that the Commonwealth should create an offence of sending illicit drugs through the mail. The amendment provides that it is an offence to send, without lawful authority, a prescribed narcotic substance as defined in the Customs Act 1901 through the mail. A penalty of a maximum of 2 years' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $5,000 attaches to the offence. This amendment will provide another weapon in the Government's fight against drug trafficking. Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 The amendments will place the Northern Territory on the same footing as the States under this Act, consistent with the grant of self-government to the Northern Territory. Removal of Prisoners (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1968 The proposed amendments will enable Territory offenders to have their non-parole periods reduced by the remissions which are granted by State law. The Act already provides that their sentences are reduced by remissions granted by State law, but the High Court held in Paivenen's case that sentences did not include non-parole periods. The present policy in the legislation is that federal and Territory offenders should receive the same remissions granted by law to their State counterparts, whether on sentences or non-parole periods. Since the Probation and Parole Act, 1983 of New South Wales came into force on 27 February 1984 Federal and State offenders have their non-parole periods reduced by remission, whereas Territory offenders, as a matter of law, do not have their non-parole periods so reduced. The amendments will put Territory offenders on the same footing as New South Wales offenders. Also, since the coming into force of the New South Wales Act courts in that State are required to set non-probation periods, not non-parole periods, where the sentences are 3 years or less. Where the sentences are more than 3 years the court may still set non-parole periods in New South Wales. Non-probation orders in New South Wales are reduced by the same remissions applying to non-parole periods. In the Australian Capital Territory, however, a court may only set a non-parole period. There are technical differences between a non-probation period and a non-parole period, particularly relating to release. The amendments will therefore ensure that Territory offenders sentenced to 3 years or less will have their non-parole periods reduced by remission. At common law, it has been held that where a prisoner escapes while serving a term of imprisonment he cannot be detained under the sentence once the term has expired. The amendments will make it clear that a Territory offender's sentence will cease to run for the period he is at large. Trade Practices Act 1974 The first amendment rectifies a possible unintended limitation on what bodies corporate may be considered to be associated with an acquirer. The words to be deleted were originally added during the Senate debate and could operate to create a significant loophole in merger regulation. As the Act now stands it may not apply to takeovers where the takeover vehicle has no market activities. The amendment will correct this. Consistent with existing provisions, the second amendment prohibits a corporation converting an existing credit card so that it can be used as a debit card, or vice versa, without a prior request from the consumer. The final amendment will enable an applicant to bring an action to seek certain relief in respect of a contravention of the consumer protection provisions. Under existing law a consumer would have to commence an action for damages or injunction before seeking this relief. The amendments do not involve any policy changes. Wheat Marketing Act 1984 The proposed amendment is to redefine wheat of a season. The redefinition would include wheat which has been sown after 1 January, but harvested before 1 October, in a particular year. This will have regard to the practices of the Australian Wheat Board and has industry support. The proposed amendment is to be retrospective to the commencement of the Wheat Marketing Act 1979 to cover the full period of that Act, and includes wheat pools already realised by the Board as well as one pool which is yet to be closed. Repeal of spent and inoperative Acts No comment is necessary about most of the Acts being repealed. As 1986 is the International Year of Peace, it is appropriate that I briefly mention the background to the repeal of the Trading with the Enemy Acts. The Acts were passed to provide for offences during the period of war in respect of trading with the enemy, and also to provide for the control of enemy property. The period of war was proclaimed to exist from 3 September 1939 until 8 May 1952 when, by proclamation, the state of war was declared no longer to exist. No enemy property from the war period is now held or administered by the Commonwealth, and the Acts have been inoperative for a number of years. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator GRIMES —As this Bill was amended in the House of Representatives and therefore has to be reprinted by the House, copies of it will be circulated to honourable senators as soon as those stocks are received. The Government will not seek Senate consideration of the Bill until honourable senators have had the normal time to study it. I table the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and the revised explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.29) —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- In his statement on Public Service reforms on 25 September 1986 the Prime Minister announced the Government's intention to introduce measures to contain the rate of invalidity retirements and associated costs under the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. As part of that initiative this Bill contains provisions which will require invalidity pensioners under the scheme to report any employment. Invalidity pensions will be adjusted where annual earnings exceed a specified limit. In addition the Bill contains a large number of essentially technical provisions intended to update and clarify the operation of the Superannuation Acts 1922 and 1976 and improve the administration of the scheme. The Commonwealth superannuation scheme is the principal occupational superannuation scheme for Commonwealth sector employees. Of the 74,000 Commonwealth scheme pensioners, 28,000 or almost 38 per cent receive invalidity pensions. Invalidity pensions offer higher benefits than those otherwise obtainable on early age retirement. A survey of Commonwealth scheme invalidity pensioners conducted earlier this year by the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office and the Australian Bureau of Statistics has indicated that 12.4 per cent of invalidity pensioners under 65 years of age were employed sometime during 1985. The average earnings of those employed was $4,540 and the average pension paid to them was $15,200. In 1.3 per cent of cases, earnings from employment plus pension exceeded the salary the pensioners would have received had they continued in their previous Commonwealth employment. Invalidity pensions payable under the Commonwealth scheme are based on the premise that the recipient is unfit to perform duties. The Government therefore considers it imperative that the invalidity provisions of the scheme should not provide a taxpayer financed supplement to those who engage in employment. The Bill will amend the provisions of the Superannuation Act 1976 in relation to invalidity pensions payable under that Act and the Superannuation Act 1922 to persons who have not attained 65 years of age. It will require them to provide information to the Commissioner for Superannuation regarding any employment in which they are, or intend to be, engaged during the year. Invalidity pensions payable to such persons will be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis where the aggregate amount of the pension and income from personal exertion exceeds a specified limit. The Government considers that the limit specified in the Bill would achieve its purpose but at the same time protect persons in receipt of low levels of invalidity pension, and allow all pensioners to earn a small amount of additional income without affecting their pension payments. Provision is also made for invalidity pensions payable to persons who have not attained age 65 to be cancelled where that pension has been suspended for 12 months because the person failed to provide information on employment or failed to comply with a request to attend a medical examination which would establish whether or not he or she had been restored to health. The Bill provides that a person who became entitled to an invalidity pension on or after attaining his or her minimum retiring age-generally age 55-will have the option to forgo that pension and receive instead the age or early retirement pension which would have been payable if, at the date the person retired on invalidity grounds, he or she had retired on age grounds. Taken together the new provisions concerning invalidity pension are expected to result in net savings in excess of $4m per annum. Minimal offsetting costs and savings will result from other measures contained in the Bill which I will now outline. Consistent with changes in employment practices since the current Commonwealth scheme was introduced in 1976, the provisions concerning the preservation of superannuation rights are to be changed to enable persons to whom deferred benefits apply under the scheme to have access to those benefits on or after attaining the minimum retiring age-generally 55-that would have applied to them had they not ceased to be contributors. Under the existing provisions such benefits become payable on or after a person attains age 60. Deferred benefits paid before age 60 will be payable at a reduced rate. The Bill provides for certain regulations under the Superannuation Act 1976 to be made with retrospective effect to enable those regulations to operate as originally intended. These provisions would be purely beneficial in nature and would extend intended rights to persons in certain situations that are presently not provided for in the legislation. In response to a recommendation made by the Auditor-General the Bill adds to the existing auditing provisions contained in the Superannuation Act 1976 so that the superannuation fund investment trust will be subject to `standard' auditing provisions applicable to the generality of statutory authorities. Other provisions contained in the Bill may broadly be described as `housekeeping' changes which have been identified in the 10 years since the current scheme was introduced. These are intended to ensure that the provisions operate in the manner originally intended, to clarify certain provisions and to improve the administration of the scheme. Detailed explanations of each new provision are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Passage of this Bill will complete a major overhaul of legislation relating to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. It will place the scheme on a more efficient footing enabling it to operate in an equitable and economic manner which has due regard for the legitimate concerns of contributors and taxpayers alike. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator GRIMES —Like the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1986 this Bill was amended in the House of Representatives and has to be reprinted by that House. Again, copies will be circulated to honourable senators as soon as stocks are received. We will not seek Senate consideration of the Bill until honourable senators have had the normal time to study it. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.31) —On 3 June the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities was presented. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) said that he hoped it would receive a full debate in the Parliament. Characteristically, having made that promise, the Government reneged by the simple expedient of not providing enough time. The Dibb report, nevertheless, represents contemporary Labor thinking on defence. It does warrant a response which is why I am making these comments tonight. The report proposes an insular isolationist approach to Australia's defence problems. It also lacks the intellectual strength that the subject demands. The fundamental assumptions on which it is based are wrong. It assumes that the nations in Australia's region are peaceful and stable and that this will continue in the foreseeable future. In the unlikely event of trouble arising, it assumes that we will have ample time to react and to prepare. It proposes a purely defensive and garrison posture for Australia, but this is concealed behind the muddled thinking of the strategy of denial in the sea-air gap. If implemented, this concept would guarantee that any determined adversary would conquer Australia. Equally as important, any opportunity to influence regional events through our foreign policy affairs is denied us. At the end of the day, a nation can have a credible foreign policy only if it is seen to have the means of enforcing it. The Dibb report must be seen for what it is-a political response to the question of Australia's defence; a response tailored to a price, not a need. There have already been very significant changes to Australia's defence under Labor. Labor parties the world over have a touching faith in the belief that if a nation is seen to be no threat militarily to another, its security is guaranteed. Hence the excessive emphasis on defensive capabilities combined with the diminution or elimination of any offensive capability. Regrettably, life is not like that. It is always the weak and the helpless who get mugged first. This line of thought has already been put into operation by the present Government. Australia no longer has the ability to project military power in its region that it had when this Government came into office. Two significant capabilities have been lost. The first is the destruction of the Fleet Air Arm. Despite the retirement of HMAS Melbourne, the Fleet Air Arm with all its aircraft and equipment was intact. All of those hard-won skills from that most difficult and most demanding of all military procedures, the operation of aircraft at sea, were still there. The Fleet Air Arm could easily have been kept in a shore-based role, pending the acquisition of suitable sea-going platforms and modern aircraft at a later date. An investment which would cost billions of dollars to replace and a set of human skills and experience of incalculable value were discarded. No Australian surface ship can be protected now beyond the cover of our land-based aircraft. The second significant action of this Government was to disband the amphibious squadron. It is certain in the years ahead that we will have to support a friendly government in New Guinea or in one of the South Pacific states by going to its aid. That will involve troops and in nearly all cases they will have to be lodged and supported by sea. By getting rid of the amphibious squadron we now have no amphibious capability. The Government is being dishonest when it says that those ships can be reactivated in 21 days. The ships can not be made serviceable in that time, nor do the trained crews exist. The only unit in the Army-Brigade at Enoggera-which trained in amphibious operations now has no way of maintaining its limited skills let alone developing doctrine. Effectively we have been reduced to a fortress situation. All that now remains to be done is for the Government to get rid of the F111s. This is its next priority. The long overdue avionics update will not take place nor will air refuelling be provided for the F111s. In the lesser emergencies where peace and stability in the region need to be maintained, we must have the ability to rapidly and safely insert troops by air and sea and protect and support them when they are in place. Let me now turn to a more detailed critique of the Dibb report. The first false assumption is the 10 years no threat thesis-the theory of the foreseeable threat. There are many dangerous consequences flowing from this. Dibb's stance is unequivocal. The report states: It would take at least 10 years and massive external support for the development of a regional capacity to threaten us with substantial assault. That is not true. History rejects the theory that nations can perceive military threats any substantial distance ahead. Mr Dibb should read some history. From the time that 1 and 8 Squadrons of the Royal Australian Air Force were bombed at Khota Baru on the night 7-8 December 1941 at the outbreak of the war with Japan, it was only a little over 6 weeks to 23 January 1942 when the Japanese captured Rabaul. Hitler came to power in 1933, six years before the outbreak of World War II at a time when Germany was economically and militarily bankrupt. The magnitude of the German threat was not clear until 1936. The escalation of the Vietnam war and the development, with Russian arms, of Northern Vietnam as the world's third strongest army was not foreseen. While it was reasonably stable 10 years ago, Australia's region is no longer so. Australia's old ally New Zealand, an ally with whom we had two defence pacts-the Anzac agreement and the Anzus pact-has gone down the anti-nuclear unilateralist, pacifist path. New Zealand is now ineffective militarily and diplomatically in the South Pacific. In New Caledonia the French are persisting obdurately with the same insensitivity that they showed in Algeria to legitimate independence movements. In Vanuatu, the government has all ready accredited a Cuban legation and will probably sign some agreement with the Soviets in the near future. In Kiribati, the Soviets had a one-year fishing agreement which expired last month. This agreement did not give them port facilities and it remains to be seen what the current negotiations entail and whether the Kiribati Government renews the agreement. In New Guinea the Government has difficulties arising from a sorely stretched public service trying to administer an emerging nation. There are significant internal problems in New Guinea and to these must be added the border difficulties with Indonesia. Indonesia has had 20 years of stable government under President Suharto. The President is 65 years of age. There will most probably be a change in the presidency in the next five years. No one know what the views of the new President will be. There is unlikely to be smooth transfer of power. In the Philippines the continued growth in activity of the Communist New People's Army is of great concern. Mrs Aquino's rule is by no means assured in the years ahead. In Malaysia the growth of fundamental islamism is worrying. If it should develop and spread to Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation of earth, there would have been some regional difficulties. Superimposed on all of this is the active and expanding Soviet military and diplomatic activity in the region. The Soviet Pacific navy is the largest of the four Soviet navies. It is twice the size, with respect to the number of ships, of the United States Navy. All this is public knowledge as is the expansion and development of Cam Ranh Bay. Yet for some inexplicable reason, Mr Dibb tells us that the Soviets and their activities in the Pacific are of no significance to us. This is not a stable part of the world. It will remain unstable through the next decade or two. A situation could arise overnight that directly involves Australia's interests. There is another point that follows from this no threat for 10 years proclamation. It is very hard in a democracy to get the community to spend money on defence in peace time. When the community is told that it can be certain of 10 years of peace it becomes that much harder. It also carries the dangerous assumption that if at the end of 10 years the danger signals are flying, the government of the day will have both the will and the time to mobilise the nation's defences. If a Government does not have the integrity to take the decision to protect the safety of its people in peacetime, it is most unlikely that it will respond correctly and courageously in the face of a real threat. There will always be those in any government who will opt for inaction, rationalising it away on the grounds that to build up the nation's defences would only provoke the aggressor. They will always opt for appeasement in the belief that those who feed the crocodile will be eaten last. Another important failing of the no threat for 10 years relates to force capabilities. It takes more than 10 years to select, order and acquire major modern weapon systems. To those years have to be added the years of training to use it effectively and developing doctrine for it. Where does this come from. The source is the strategic basis paper which is a top secret document, except when the National Times publishes it. This document provides the grounds on which the Department of Defence bases its actions. The first point to be made is that this is a political document. It is written so as not to conflict with the known prejudices of the government of the day. Secondly, it is mainly the product of civilian analysts in the Department of Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and similar bodies-people incapable of making an accurate military appreciation of the situation. The third problem with the strategic basis paper is that the Department of Defence uses it to look for threats and then tailors our force structure to counter those threats. In peace-in the absence of any proven threat-planning is therefore paralysed. The Australian Defence Force cannot be structured to cope with threat based scenarios. The second major failing of the Dibb report is the acceptance of the Fortress Australia theory. There are two salient principles involved in this-its inherent isolationism and the myth of the sea-air gap. The defence of Australia does not start on the beaches of Bathurst Island or even 1,000 miles out. It is intimately related to the peace and security of all those nations around us. An effective foreign policy which recognises and works to support this goal is the first essential. We must have a policy which supports an interlocking system of alliances with the nations in our region. A prerequisite for this is the ability to get along amicably with the nations in our region, something that this Government has great difficulty in doing. Our security requires the ability and the will to deploy the Australian Defence Force, either jointly or as single services as the case demands, in support of regional nations, if they request our help. Their peace and security is the best and cheapest guarantee of our peace and security. This involves a series of alliances. These alliances fall into two groups-one with the United States, the other with nations in the region. Dibb's assessment of ANZUS is the most mercenary one I have ever read. The report in two different places says: The presence of the joint facilities, together with the access that we provide to visits by United States warships and the staging through Australia of B-52 bombers, are a sufficient tangible contribution to the Alliance. This theme is repeated: United States warships visit this country although they have no home-porting here, and unarmed B52 bombers stage through Australia. The access we provide this way, together with the presence of the joint facilities and political support is a sufficient tangible contribution to the Alliance, from the perspective of both parties. This is an extraordinary narrow view of our obligations under ANZUS. It is the most important of our defence treaties. It needs strengthening by active and enthusiastic Australian support. It is in our interests far more than America's that we honour the spirit of the treaty rather that seek to make the least contribution that we can legally get away with. Dibb overlooks one of the fundamental points of ANZUS. The treaty says that the Americans will provide military support to us in appropriate circumstances. Precisely the same obligation is binding on us to support the Americans militarily in a reciprocal way. Dibb tells us to give no thought to how we should operate with our ally. Quite clearly Australia does have an obligation to maintain and strengthen the deterrent capabilities of the Western democracies. That does involve having some capability to co-operate militarily with the nations in the Western Alliance. Closer to home, Australia must develop alliances with our regional neighbours. We should seek an alliance with Indonesia and with the Association of South East Asian Nations group. Whether this requires one or more treaties is a matter to be determined. Clearly some extended period would be involved in these negotiations. It may take a decade or more for this to come about but that is irrelevant. The important thing is to start now working for that goal. To follow the Dibb strategy of damning regional alliances with faint praise is to make Australia's defence very much more expensive and very much more problematical. Curiously, on page three of the report Dibb toys with this concept but does not consider it seriously and fails to develop it. The 1,000 mile sea-air gap outside Fortress Australia has many dangers. First of all we are very bluntly telling our neighbours that their freedom and survival is of no consequence to us. By putting them outside our defensive perimeter, we view them as potential enemies. We also yield control of the approaches to Australia and therefore the initiative. The ability of an aggressor to make lodgments in force on Australian soil is thereby enhanced. Given our geography and population, Australia's first objective must be to avoid large land battles. That means defence in depth and the development of mutual supporting pacts with the nations in the region. It is in no sense a return to the old concept of forward defence, the last vestiges of which disappeared in 1973. Unlike the policy of forward defence where Australia relied on British forces based, or really superimposed in the region, what is proposed is a mutually supporting system drawn from the nations in the region. The heart of the Dibb policy, however, is the strategy of denial-a multi-layered strategy of defence reaching out for 1,000 miles with the assumption that if we control this sea and air gap nothing can get across. This is both a foolish and an unworkable doctrine. In this scheme both the Air Force and the Navy will have as their primary role a maritime strike capability. The assumption is that any aggressor will be coming by sea and will be able to be destroyed. All military forces have to have a point of origin, a base or bases from which they are supported. If the threat from hostile forces is going to be removed it is nearly always necessary to eliminate these well springs of support. It is always desirable to remove them. They are always on land. Yet any land strike capability is discounted by Dibb. The F111s are not to have their avionics update nor to be given in-flight refuelling. They need both. The alternative proposed, the F18s do not have comparable capabilities and never will have them. They do not have a terrain following radar which allows the F111 to get in at night in the worst of weather just above the trees. Such a capability makes the F111 a powerful deterrent. It is very hard to prevent its getting to its target. If Dibb is proposing a strategy of denial, there is an obligation on him to provide the essentials to try to make it work. There is a need to have accurate knowledge of what is moving around in the sea-air gap. This can be done only by conventional radars and in our case that is most economically and effectively done by airborne early warning aircraft. These are not to be bought, despite the fact that all three services want them. The second reason why denial will not work is that the 1,000 mile sea-air gap does not consist of blue seas and blue skies as Dibb implies. There are thousands of islands in it-many of which provide excellent bases. The Indonesian islands have the fifth-largest population in the world. This is a very important point. The fact that such an important point is overlooked by Dibb and Beazley raises some very disturbing questions. No aggressor will operate from bases on the other side of the world. He will operate from bases in the so-called sea-air gaps with or without the approval of the legal owners. In the event of an invasion of Australia, the report's prescription is that we should seek to destroy the enemy ships on the high seas. It is worth observing that, before the outbreak of hostilities, anyone could legally approach to within 12 miles of the Australian coast. However, if it were clear that no bases from which any aggressor was operating were immune from destruction, a valuable counter argument exists. The report ridicules this concept-a deterrent capability. It says: The problem with deterrence as a force planning concept is that there are historical examples where apparently inferior forces have attacked-that is were undeterred-and have won. All that that statement shows is that the author does not understand that a deterrent has to be credible. Another great failing of this purely defensive approach is that the initiative rests with the attacker. Australia's small forces could be easily exhausted by repeated feints over the huge areas involved in our northern approaches. A large group of failings relate to technical matters. The first such example relates to air cover for the fleet. Consider this statement which justifies the lack of air cover for the fleet: We should avoid policies that require naval surface vessels to be placed at risk of air attack or access to our defending fighters. Apparently we only fight wars on our own terms. The report also claims: The F-111 can perform the role of long range air interceptor. This is not true. Lacking any air to air fire control radar the FIII cannot be used as an interceptor with any expectation of success. Of more importance, the enthusiastic support for Jindalee, the over the horizon radar, as a sole source of radar surveillance for the north shows enormous ignorance of the capabilities and limitations inherent in any OTHR system. Jindalee, when developed, will be a great asset for Australia, but even if it fulfils its promise it can never be a system that stands alone. Its role is to supplement conventional radars. Over the horizon radars work by reflecting a high frequency signal off the ionosphere on to the ground. The return signal is reflected back along the same path. Ordinary radars use a much shorter wave length signal and operate in a straight line. Because of the limitations imposed by the curvature of the earth, the range of conventional radars is from around 30 miles at sea level to about 200 at altitude. OTHRs have ranges of the order of a thousand miles. There are some considerable technical problems with this system. Being a high frequency signal, the signal is subject to sun spot activity. Further, the signals wax and wane through a 24-hour cycle the way normal HF radio signals do. There can be times when it does not work. Skip distance is important and targets close in are poorly delineated. Finally, the signal can be jammed electronically rather easily. Jindalee will not give the detailed information that conventional radars do-height and speed, let alone the target recognition available in some modern radars. A target moving at a constant radius to the set and thereby exhibiting no doppler shift will be invisible. Nevertheless it covers a huge area and alerts the operator that something is there. Given the enormous physical size of the areas that surround Australia, such a sieve, however crude, is more than welcome and not to be lightly put aside. The first and only station sited near Alice Springs has just been declared operational after years in an experimental role. Years of further development still lie ahead. The question of further Jindalee stations is really a matter of priority. The announcement by the Minister for Defence that it is proposed to implement the section of the report that recommends the purchase of a further two or three Jindalees is quite wrong. Having got one OTHR on-line and being developed, the correct priority is to move to the acquisition of airborne early warning aircraft. The money involved in this new Jindalee program, according to the Minister, is approximately $500m. What is being attempted here is the use of Jindalee to detect a target. The information so received then being used to direct the fighters, the F18s into the general area and for them to establish whether the target is harmful or not. That is a very wasteful way to go and it is unworkable as well. To send a short-range fighter out to investigate every contact in a country the size of Australia needs more fighters than we will ever be able to afford. Further more, by probing electronically with their onboard radars for the intruders, our fighters declare there presence and position. For that $500m we could well have had a fleet of four or five airborne early warning aircraft, which we are going to have to buy in any case. The Army, the Navy and above all the Air Force want them now. Yet Dibb says: Defer acquisition of airborne early warning and control systems. The worrying thing is that, even if a decision were made today to go ahead, it would be eight or 10 years before we had an operational system. The Army is the victim of some great technical and tactical misperceptions. Dibb simply cannot comprehend that soldiers will ever be required to fight-except against small groups of insurgents never more than in company strength. I find it impossible to believe that any country would suffer the enormous international criticism of invading Australia to put only a company ashore. If that situation arises they will come in very much larger numbers. Only an army can take and hold ground. Holding essential ground is what wars are all about. The report cannot see the need for an adequate army. There is no need for armoured personnel carriers, no need for artillery and definitely no need for tanks, according to the report. Dibb is living before the Boer War, before machine guns, tanks and modern artillery. Have all the infantry lessons of this century, bought at such an incredible price, from the Somme onwards been lost? Soldiers must be protected. Dibb rightly addresses the need for more battlefield helicopters, but he confuses tactical mobility with battlefield mobility. They are not one and the same but two totally different requirements. Soldiers cannot fight from helicopters. They fight on the ground. They have to have armoured personnel carriers to move on to and around the battlefield. Dibb says we have too many of the old M113s and they will be adequate if upgraded. The report says: While the M113 may not be ideal for operations in our north, it is clearly suited for training and operations in the shorter term, with perhaps some modification. The M113 is a first generation armoured personnel carrier. Its design is 30 years old. It is a highly dangerous vehicle on the battlefield. Money spent on modifications will never overcome its design failings. Such expenditure is money wasted. Tragically, many lives will be lost pointlessly if this advice is followed. The life of every Australian is important and with our low population we cannot exchange lives to win territory. Soldiers must be protected in modern APCs on the battlefield. They must have adequate artillery support and they must have the protection and mobile firepower that comes from armour. From their introduction in the First World War, through North Africa and New Guinea to Vietnam, it has been our doctrine to use tanks, and for good reason. Dibb sees a very limited requirement for artillery and none at all for tanks. If we have to employ ground forces we have to get there quickly and with adequate protection and firepower so that the matter is resolved quickly and with minimal loss of life. One serious myopic failing in the report is the lack of consideration of helicopters in relation to land warfare except for transport purposes. The use of helicopters as fire support and anti-armour platforms is something we must be looking at in relation to our own needs. On the subject of helicopters, censure must be made of the report's recommendation that the new battlefield helicopters be given to the Army. This was done to buy off the Army because of the low priority assigned to them in the report. Army does need to have full control of those assets and be able to use them how and when it pleases; but that can be done without assigning them the ownership. To set up a system where Australia has to spend possible hundreds of millions of dollars duplicating facilities is wrong. Army would have to train its own pilots and maintenance personnel for a very advanced and complex helicopter; it would have to set up a very sophisticated and expensive engineering and maintenance base. All that needs to be done is give 9 Squadron, or whatever squadron it is, the responsibility of providing the airlift to the ODF as their sole task. Make the squadron live at Lavarack not Garbutt, so that it becomes completely integrated. For a small country such as Australia no other course is practicable. It is more than strange that the Army is quite happy to ride into battle in helicopters of the United States Army or Marine Corps yet baulks at its own comrades in arms. One of the problems the Army identifies is that it has a low priority with the Royal Australian Air Force. This is a consequence of underfunding of the Defence vote rather than neglect by the Air Force. One of the compromises proposed to avoid the financial consequences outlined above is for Air Force to train the pilots and do the maintenance. This simply will not work. The public debate on this matter by Army has reflected no credit on it. Time does not permit me to extend my criticisms much further. I want to flag some other points of importance. I totally disagree that the safe passage of shipping to an from Australia is of no concern to our national interest; nor do I agree that there is little chance of shipping being harassed. To do so would show a profound ignorance of the blockades that have been implemented since the Second World War, to say nothing of the 68 ships that have been attacked between January and August this year in the Persian Gulf. The report's treatment of submarines, the need for them and particularly anti-submarine warfare is naive. It says: In view of the very limited regional submarine capability, there is not need to enhance our already considerable ASW forces beyond the need to introduce surface towed arrays and to complete the program of helicopters for the guided missile frigates. China, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, India and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics all operate submarines in our sea lines of communications and presumably if the need arose could do so in Australian waters. While we once had a reasonably adequate ASW capability this has declined, particularly since there are no platforms to take the Sea Kings with their active sonar to sea other than on non-combatant ships like the Stalwart. An important point relates to the war between the Services and the civilian Department of Defence. On page 2 of the report the statement is made: Defence planning is not made easier by the adversarial attitudes that exist within the Defence community. There is another reference later on. Regrettably, there are no recommendations offered for a fix to this tragic state of affairs, which is the most lasting and crippling of legacies from the Tange plan. Nothing more strikingly illustrates the outlook of the author than the section on war reserves and stocks. Senator Harradine —I raise a point of order, Mr President. It relates to standing order 125, anticipating debate. My point of order is no reflection on Senator MacGibbon, whose contribution is one in which I am very interested. I point out that the matter to which his contribution refers is the Dibb report, Australia's Defence Capabilities-Review. It is item No. 55 on the Notice Paper. I, as does Senator MacGibbon, would like to see that matter come forward before the end of this session in view of the fact that the Government is preparing a White Paper. I trust that the Government will have that debate before the end of this session. I draw your attention, Mr President, to standing order No. 125 in the sense that this may be anticipating such a debate. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. The matter to which Senator Harradine refers is a motion for the Senate to take note of the paper. That is really a wide-ranging debate not affected by the matter Senator MacGibbon is now raising. Senator MacGIBBON —Limited though our present forces are, our biggest shortcoming is sustainability. We simply do not have the reserves of ammunition and missiles in the country to sustain heavy offensive operations for more than a few days; nor do we have the trained manpower to provide any surge capacity. The report sees no need for stock holdings because of the strategy of denial. A quite extraordinary statement says: Remoteness and dispersion in the operating environment would be very demanding on fuel, lubricants and spare parts. Yet the general avoidance of military confrontation by the aggressor would probably limit the requirements for ammunition, particularly of the more advanced missiles. A few sentences later the theme is further developed. We must be selective in our approach to providing complete weapon outfits for ships and aircraft. How many lives were lost in the Falklands because civilians in Whitehall thought this way? How many ships of the Royal Navy, though designed for air defence weapons systems, went to that war without them fitted? The ships damaged or sunk by air attack were Antelope, Antrim, Ardent, Argonaut, Brilliant, Broadsword, Coventry, Fearless, Glamorgan, Glasgow, Plymouth, and Sheffield. Over 80 lives were lost and four ships sunk. The reality is that when trouble starts, a nation has to use what it has at the outset. There are no years of preparation in this era. At the end of the day the most important element in the defence of Australia is not the strategy or the equipment but the welfare of those men and women who wear the uniforms of the Services. At a time when we have record and potentially devastating resignations of senior non-commissioned officers and middle ranking officers because of the erosion of their conditions of service, there is nothing constructive in the report. It was clearly within Dibb's terms of reference. He made recommendations on conditions of service with respect to the reserves. Having dealt critically with some of the failings of the report, it is only fair to refer to some of the suggestions which are of value. The support for the development of a series of airfields from Learmonth to Cape York and a patrol boat base to the northern coast of Western Australia, as planned by the previous Government, make good sense. The recommendation to rescind the tax on reservists, since adopted by the Government, was a most necessary move. It is to be hoped that the call out provisions are also modified. The proposals to develop permanent joint force headquarters, as recommended by the parliamentary Committee, are worth exploring. The whole subject of command and control of the Australian defence forces needs much more analysis and change but the report does not examine this. In conclusion, I want to offer some suggestions as to what should be done. I do not think any meaningful discussion on defence can take place if the argument concerns equipment. What we need to do is get the direction right and then the rest will follow. The first thing Australian governments of all persuasions need to do is recognise the fact that their overriding responsibility is the protection of their population. They must also develop the political will in the community to protect those interests. Money spent on defence is money wasted unless the nation has the will to use those forces on the occasions when the nation's essential interests are challenged. When that political will is apparent the defence forces have credibility in the eyes of other nations. Australia must be able to operate independently, as far as this is possible in an age of high technology. That means that we have to spend more money and attain a higher level of readiness. We must not have an insular vision. We must have workable alliances with the United States and with the countries in our region. We must have the capability of helping those nations, if the need arises, with our own forces. That means we have to have the means to project force in the region, on land, air or sea as the need arises. The ability to project power has a double value because, in the worst case, if our alliances should fail we still possess a deterrent capability. We must have the ability to make a graded or flexible response to situations that affect us. If the Dibb report were implemented, the only response, limited though it might be, to an external threat would lie with the Air Force. That is not enough. Air power is relatively inflexible and transient. An air strike against a threat might be quite inappropriate. There could be many occasions when the graduated presence of ships or the stationing of troops was a more appropriate response. While we need to spend more on defence we also must get better value for the money we are spending at present. The present administration by the Department of Defence is expensive. There is an army of civilians paralysing the decision making process and consuming a large part of the budget. The civilian department, with the exception of DSTO, should be dramatically reduced in numbers and removed from many activities that it has created for itself. The selection of equipment and the running of the Services is a matter for the professionals, with relevant technical advice coming from DSTO. In conclusion, I would like to quote from a paper by someone who does have the intellectual and professional abilities to comment on Australian's defence, Professor Robert O'Neill. In a paper he presented in 1980, Bob O'Neill had this to say: The major issue now is not so much one of finance or organisation but of strategic judgment in recognising a growing need to contribute to the security of Australia's regional environment. The security of the home base is still a sine qua non of a sound posture but Australia would be ill-advised to pursue that strategic policy alone, with dedicated perfectionism. To do so would be to misunderstand how the balance of international power normally works. Diplomacy and strategy must go hand in hand: to refuse greater defence co-operation to our allies and regional partners in the 1980s might not only lead them to regard Australia as irrelevant but also require Australia to maintain ultimately much greater forces for its own protection in a hostile environment. (Extension of time granted) There is nothing I wish to add to that, except to say that there is a need for a similar review to be carried out on our foreign affairs policies. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.02 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian National University Act-Statute No. 189-Deputy Vice-Chancellorship Amendment No. 6. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Amended Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors and Equipment) Act-Amended Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Books) Act-Amended Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Act-Amended Return, for year 1985-86. Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Act-Amended Return, for year 1985-86. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1986- No. 10-Game, Poultry and Rabbit Meat (Amendment). No. 11-Export Control (Fruits and Vegetables). No. 12-Export Control (Fees) (Amendment). Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Phosphate Fertilizers Subsidy Act-Amended Return, for year 1985-86. Supported Accommodation Assistance Act-Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Victoria, dated 5 November 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1055) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) What are the numbers of kangaroos and wallabies killed, state by state, on a non-commercial basis, for the period 31 December 1984 to 31 December 1985. (2) What are the numbers and quantities of the numbered tags returned from the State of Victoria after processing, on a state by state basis, for the calendar years 1984 and 1985. (3) How many kangaroo processing works are currently operating in the State of Victoria, and what companies are licensed to operate these works. (4) What funds were expended by the Commonwealth Government on the visit to Australia by Hemmo Muntingh, Rapporteur for the European Parliament; and of these funds, how much was spent on travel, how much on air fares, and how much on entertainment. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Table 1 gives the information on non-commercial kangaroo killing for 1985 as provided by State and Territory wildlife authorities. (2) the Director of the Victorian Fisheries and Wildlife Service has advised that this information is not required to be furnished to the Victorian Government. It is understood that other States do not require used tags to be returned from the State of Victoria. (3) The Director of the Victorian Fisheries and Wildlife Service has advised that the following ten companies are licensed to operate kangaroo processing works. Allelemdjian & Co. Pty Ltd, F. Bottaro, Clinkat Aust. Pty Ltd, J. S. Conway, Total Furcare, Fairweather Fur Dressers & Dyers Pty Ltd, Oberon Tanning Co., Super Leather, Wattle Glen Pet Food Pty Ltd, Vameyre Pty Ltd. Table 1 PERMITTED NON-COMMERCIAL KANGAROO TAKE 31.12.84 to 31.12.85 Species Qld N.S.W.2 S.A.3 W.A.5 Tas.6 Vic.7 N.T.8 ACT Total Macropus rufus... 556 . . - . . - - 6 - M. giganteus/... 14,6274 M. fuliginosus... 12,280 15,314 . . - 9,725 - 332 M. robustus... 490 855 . . - - - - M. parryi... - - . . - - - - M. rufogriseus... 171 - . . 299,104 55 - - Thylogale billardierii... - - . . 247,421 - - - Macropus eugenuii... - 12,660 . . - - - Wallabia bicolor... 82 - . . - 157 - - Wallabies general1... - - . . - - - - Total... 14,868 16,422 27,287 . . 546,525 9,937 69 332 615,377 Notes- 1. No separate species details kept. 2. Section 121 licences and property tags issued for macropods on a species by species basis essentially in the non-commercial zone. 3. figures given are for numbers permitted to be killed not number actually killed. 4. No species breakdown, but includes 1,436 M. fuliginosus on Kangaroo Island. 5. No records maintained. W.A. Department of Conservation and Land Management advise figure is considered not to be significant. 6. Estimated by questionnaires, S.E. +- 51,877 for M. rufogriseus and S.E. +- 49,688 for T. billardierii. 7. Includes M. giganteus 7,550 and M. fuliginosus 1,470 separately identified. 8. Additionally, M. agilis is unprotected in the N.T. north of 15`S apart from national parks, reserves and Arnhem Land. No estimate is available for the take of this species, however, no major shooting was known to occur in 1985. 9. Taken under Scientific Permit. (4) Costs for Mr Muntingh's visit met by the Commonwealth were: $ (a) Mr Muntingh's travel - airfare and air charter costs... 5,664.00 - travel allowance... 656.65 Total... 6,320.65 (b) Accompanying Commonwealth officer travel - Air fares... 378.00 - Travel allowance... 470.80 Total... 848.80 (c) Costs associated with Mr Muntingh's meetings in Canberra - Conference Room hire... 50.00 - National Advisory Committee on Kangaroos (Member travel and luncheon costs)... 1,235.00 - Shared travel cost of Tasmanian NPWS representative... 190.00 Total... 1,475.00 (d) Entertainment costs... Nil (e) Total cost... 8,644.45 (Question No. 1260) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What is the average length of delay between the time a Bill receives Royal Assent and the time it is available for sale at Australian Government Publishing Service Bookshops. (2) Are there any special measures taken to have Acts dealing with taxation available for sale in a shorter time than would occur for other Acts. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) For 1986 Acts issued for sale to date, the average length of time between date of Royal Assent and date of availability at the Commonwealth Government Bookshop in Canberra is 33 days (1-2 days longer for Bookshops in State capitals). The procedure for the publication of legislation is as follows: (i) Following Royal Assent, Parliament gives the Government Printing Office approval to print the Numbered Act and the Printing Office proceeds with print production. (ii) Final approval copies are sent to Parliament for approval as soon as they are available. (iii) The Printing Office then receives approval for release and distribution. (2) No. No directions have been given to the Printing Office which would indicate that one type of legislation is to be given priority over others. (Question No. 1287) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since 5 March 1983. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question as follows: (1) No reclassification action has been taken in relation to any Senior Executive Service (SES) positions in the Department since 5 March 1983. However following a decision to review the top structure of the former Australian Information Services Branch (now Promotion Australia), an SES Level 2 position was transferred from within the Department to assume control of the Branch. The former SES Level 1 position was subsequently abolished. (2) This action was approved on 23 September 1985. The respective salary levels at that time were: SES Level 1-$46019, SES Level 2-$50507. (Question No. 1292) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since 5 March 1983. (2) What were the details and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) In a restructuring of the establishment of the Australian Heritage Commission on 25 July 1984, a new position of Director at Senior Executive Level 2, ($53,632) was created replacing the previous position of Director at Senior Executive Level 1 ($48,867), which was reclassified as Deputy Director, Senior Executive Level 1. (Question No. 1353) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What investigations were undertaken of- (a) the usage of the Long Bay Rifle Range; (b) the alternative rifle range facilities available in metropolitan Sydney; and (c) the potential land usage of the Long Bay Rifle Range prior to the Budget decision to sell the Long Bay Rifle Range on the open market. (2) What discussions, if any, were held with the New South Wales Government prior to the decision referred to above. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: The Government decided to sell Anzac Rifle Range and other Commonwealth properties in the context of the 1986-87 Budget. The revenue from these disposals will help meet the Government's economic objectives in the current financial year. As regards the specific points raised in the senator's question: (1) (a) The current usage of the Range by the Commonwealth and by various non-Commonwealth users was brought to the Government's attention in its consideration of the proposed sale. (b) I am not aware that the Government gave specific consideration to the availability of alternative rifle range facilities for non-Commonwealth users in metropolitan Sydney during its deliberation on the proposed sale. (c) Potential land usage is a significant factor in considering the salability and revenue potential of any property. In this respect, the potential land usage of the Anzac Rifle Range was a factor in the deliberative process leading to the Government's decision to sell the Range. (2) I am not aware that any discussions were held with the New South Wales Government prior to the Budget decision to sell the Anzac Rifle Range. Established principles of confidentiality would mitigate against such discussions in the Budget context. Subsequent to the Budget announcement, I wrote to the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment seeking co-operation with the State in disposing of the Range, including consideration of any proposal by the State to acquire the property. It is important to note that once a property leaves Commonwealth ownership it becomes subject to State and local government land use planning and zoning requirements. In this respect, the Anzac Rifle Range would be no different from any other property disposed of by the Commonwealth. (Question No. 1357) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: Has the Minister's Department, any statutory body or authority under the control of the Minister granted funds to the Tasmanian Trade Union Community Research Centre since 5 March 1983; if so- (a) under what schemes/programs were these grants given; (b) what was the amount of money involved for these grants; (c) who administered these grants; (d) what were the purposes of the schemes/programs; and (e) why were these grants necessary. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am advised that no funds have been granted to the Tasmanian Trade Union Community Research Centre by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment or any statutory body or authority under the control of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. (a) to (e) Not applicable. (Question No. 1371) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What are the function or functions of the Statutory Authority titled, Australian Institute of Anatomy. (2) How many people are currently employed by the Authority on a part-time or a full-time basis. (3) How many of these people are employed in an Honorary capacity. (4) To what extent is the Authority subsidised by the private sector and what has been the cost to the Australian Government for maintaining the Authority for each year of its existence. (5) It is a fact that the Authority is not required to produce an annual report; if so, why not. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (5) The Government decided in 1984 to make the Institute of Anatomy Building available to accommodate the National Film and Sound Archive. As a result of this decision the Institute's collection was transferred to the National Museum of Australia and the Australian Institute of Anatomy Agreement Act 1924 was repealed by Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 1985. (Question No. 1374) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) Has the Government held any discussions with the New South Wales Rifle Association or with the Bicentenary Authority about possible alternate sites for the holding of the planned 1988 Bicentenary Shoot that had been proposed to be held at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar which the Government now proposes to sell. (2) Did the Government in its decision to consider selling the Anzac Rifle Range, take into consideration that the Range is used by about 120,000 people annually, including Defence and Corrective Services personnel. (3) What alternate arrangements would be made for these users of the Anzac Rifle Range. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government decided to sell the Anzac Rifle Range and other Commonwealth properties in the context of the 1986-87 Budget. The revenue from these disposals will help meet the Government's economic objectives in the current financial year. As regards the specific points raised in the Senator's question: (1) The Deputy Prime Minister and the Ministers for Defence, Sport, Recreation and Tourism and I have separately held discussions with representatives of the New South Wales Rifle Association, the Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships and the National Rifle Association about the proposed sale of the Anzac Rifle Range and the impact of such a sale on the planned 1988 Bicentenary shoot. (2) The current usage of the Range by the Commonwealth and by various non-Commonwealth users was brought to the Government's attention in its consideration of the proposed sale. (3) Alternative arrangements for current Commonwealth users of the Anzac Rifle Range is a matter for consideration by the relevant Commonwealth departments. I am not aware that the Government has given specific consideration to alternative arrangements for non-Commonwealth users of the Range. (Question No. 1397) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) What statistics are available on: (a) fatal; and (b) permanently disabling injuries incurred by: (i) professional, and (ii) amateur sportsmen engaged in official rugby league, rugby union, Australian rules and soccer matches in the 6 States and 2 Territories in the financial years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. (2) What, if any, uniform measures are in place between the States and Territories to monitor the level of violence in sport. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Statistics on injuries in sport are not to my knowledge available by financial years by State at present from any Commonwealth Government source. The only State figures at present published are those from the New South Wales Sporting Injuries Committee (SIC). The relevant table from this report is attached. (2) There are not, to my knowledge, uniform measures in place between the States and Territories to monitor the level of violence in sport. Table 19 Table containing information as to numbers of cases of fatalities recorded and investigated by the SIC-division of total number of cases by sport and by year of incidence Sport No. of cases Calendar years in which fatalities occurred 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Australian Rules... 1 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . Canoeing... 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . Cycling... 5 1 . . . . 1 1 1 1 . . . . Fishing... 2 . . . . . . . . 1 1 . . . . . . Hockey... 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . Horse-race Riding... 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . Motor-cycling... 13 . . . . 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 Polo... 2 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 1 . . Pony Riding... 1 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . Rugby... 10 1 1 1 2 1 1 . . 2 1 Rugby League... 18 5 1 . . 1 3 1 1 4 2 Soccer... 1 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . Spearfishing... 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . Squash... 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . Touch Football... 2 . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . 1 . . Totals... 62 7 2 5 7 10 8 7 12 4