Thursday, 27 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: We, the undersigned concerned Australian citizens hereby petition the Honourable Senators to totally reject the current proposals for an I.D. Card and the proposed Data Protection Agency. We believe that they represent potentially undesirable interference in the lives of honest Australians. Provisions for protection of individual privacy cannot be guaranteed as Statutes are easily altered by future Governments. We believe that there are more efficient methods to prevent fraud in the areas of taxation and social security without the use of these two proposals, which go well beyond the reach of the true role of democratic government, i.e. That citizens may live quiet and peaceable lives. The I.D. Card and Data Protection Agency have strong potential under this or future administrations to interfere with the quiet and peaceable lives of its subjects. We, your humble petitioners, in duty bound ever pray. by Senator Sanders (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and Senators. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, believing that Australia should not host nuclear weapons in its territory or in Australian waters; and that the presence of nuclear-armed warships makes a priority nuclear target of ports being visited; and that the safety precautions for handling and deployment of nuclear weapons are inadequate to guarantee safety from accidents; and that the following warships, all capable of launching nuclear weapons deployed in the British or United States navies, will be in Australia between 29 September to 30 October-HMS Illustrious, HMS Beaver, HMS Fort Grange, HMS Manchester, HMS Amazon, HMS Olmeda, USS Missouri, USS Paul F. Foster, USS Oldendorf; and that these warships capable of carrying nuclear weapons will be participating in the 75th Anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy. We therefore call upon the Australian Government to: prohibit the entry of nuclear weapons to Australia; and to deny access to Australian ports of foreign warships unless an assurance is received that they are not carrying nuclear weapons; and to require that foreign warships participating in the anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy not be carrying nuclear weapons in Australian territorial waters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sanders (from 659 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: that all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions; that the Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is an unwarranted burden on the small business and rural sectors, which will severely affect their long-term viability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraws the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation without delay. by Senator Short (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with the mismanagement of the Victorian Otwar forests, and we pray that: The Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant expressions of public concern, e.g. petitions, by the formation of a committee to represent public requests. by Senators Sanders (from 21 citizens) and Vallentine (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That there is a need for an Independent and Multi-cultural Broadcasting Corporation to give a firm legislative and financial basis for the SBS Network. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should Pass Senator Vigor's Bill with all expediency. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sanders (from 43 citizens) and Siddons (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, being concerned that the Australian Government, in breach of its own stated policies, has lifted the bans on the sale of uranium to France; demand that the Government re-impose the bans on such sales, and further, that the Government ratifies and strengthens the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty to prohibit uranium sales within the region. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sanders (from 40 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, in accordance with sub-section 49 (2) of the Audit Act 1901, the Senate approves the variation to the form of the Statement of Financial Transactions of the Commonwealth presented to the Senate on 26 November 1986. I seek leave to make a short statement relating to the notice of motion and to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- I have presented to the Senate particulars of an amended form of Statement of Commonwealth Financial Transactions together with a statement which outlines the proposed changes. Honourable senators will be aware that section 49 of the Audit Act 1901 provides for the Statement to be in a particular form unless varied with the prior approval of both Houses of the Parliament. The form of the Statement is set out in Form 4 in Schedule 2 to the Audit Act. This is the second time, since the form was incorporated in the Schedule to the Act in 1979, that an amendment has been proposed. The original format was based on the then Budget presentation of Receipts, Outlays and Financing Transactions. On 15 May 1985, I presented to the Senate an amended format of the Statement which aligned the items shown to those used in the Budget documents for the 1985-86 financial year. The proposed new format was subsequently accepted by both houses. Since then it has become evident that a few more changes are needed if the Parliament is to be provided with the detail of information to which it is entitled. I commend the proposed new format to the Senate. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —At the request of Senator Cooney and on his behalf, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, Senator Cooney will withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in his name for the next day of sitting and relating to disallowance of the Optometrists (Amendment) Ordinance 1986 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 51 of 1986. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has been corresponding with the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) about this Ordinance and the Minister has agreed to make certain changes to protect the rights of optometrists. The Committee thanks the Minister for the advice and assistance he has given it. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a short summary of the Committee's scrutiny and I seek leave to table the Committee's correspondence for the information of honourable senators and others. Leave granted. The summary read as follows- The Committee wrote to the Minister for Territories asking that he make amendments to the above Ordinance to protect the rights of optometrists. For example, the Optometrists Board can reprimand an optometrist who would then have no right of appeal against that decision if he or she thought it unfair or unjustified. If the person's professional status had been cancelled or suspended there would have been a right of appeal. Consistency and justice suggested that reprimands should also be appellable and the Minister has agreed to this. Under the Ordinance where the Board disciplined an optometrist, details of the reasons could be published in the Commonwealth Gazette after an A.A.T. hearing, although the individual may have lodged an appeal to the Federal Court on a point of law. The Minister has explained, and the Committee has accepted, that when the merits of the case have been before the A.A.T. (whose proceedings are public) there is no justification for further delaying publication of the Board's reasons for disciplinary action. The Committee was worried by the definition of ``unprofessional conduct'' because of the vagueness of the drafting and because it allowed an optometrist to be disciplined for merely associating, wittingly or unwittingly, with an employing optometrist who was advertising in breach of the regulations. The Minister has requested the Attorney-General's Department to draft an amendment to the Ordinance to remove both the vagueness and the possibility of guilt by association. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) in view of the Federal Government's intention to prohibit any mining in Kakadu National Park; and (b) recognising that mining companies within the Park have been given undertakings, in the past, regarding their rights to explore and develop their interests, calls upon the Federal Government to provide compensation for the actual and prospective losses which these companies will suffer if no mining is permitted within the area. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform has completed its Report on the Operation During the 1984 General Election of the 1983/84 Amendments to Commonwealth Electoral Legislation, the Committee may send the Report to the President or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy-President, and, in that event- (a) the Report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the Report is authorised by this Resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the Report; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, shall lay the Report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Consideration resumed from 19 November. GROUP D Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment Proposed expenditure, $193,300,000. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(10.06) —I wish to raise a small matter concerning the Touring and Access Committee under the Australia Council. I recognise that the Australia Council has had to economise to cope with the $1m cut in its administration. I am philosophically happy to see it being asked to do that in difficult economic times. However, I question one particular item which came to the attention of Estimates Committee D. It concerns the Touring and Access Committee. I question the action that has been taken in this regard because the whole purpose of the Touring and Access Committee, as set out in its guidelines, is to enable communities in more remote areas to have access to the performing arts. The Council believes that, through the program, sectors of the community not presently associated with the performing arts can be introduced to them. As a result of the cuts there has been a change in the representation on the Committee which decides the funding under this scheme. Clearly, the objective would be best met if at least some members of the Committee lived in the regional communities which they are serving. The present structure of the Committee has five of the seven members based in Sydney, one in Melbourne and one, who is a literature expert, from Perth. There is a lack of regional representation with no members from Tasmania, South Australia, Queensland or the Northern Territory. Anybody looking at this matter objectively would agree with me that there is right and proper reason that those are the areas that should be represented. I recognise that there are costs in travel but these can be overcome by telephone hook-up arrangements. I think there are other ways of making economies to cope with the $1m cut which do not in fact defeat the whole purpose of the touring and access program. It is a very valuable program for people in country and regional areas and to have the representation limited in the way in which it is now limited with five out of seven members coming from Sydney is just not an acceptable way of dealing with the matter. Naturally, I have had representations from Tasmania but I am sure that people in regional and country areas around Australia would agree that that is just not a satisfactory way of managing the program in the future. There is a very clear need for the Committee to have people who have a knowledge of the logistics of touring to small regional centres, people with understanding of the marketing peculiarities in such centres, people who understand the suitability of programs as they relate to regional tastes and needs and people who understand local demographic factors. This knowledge is not easily acquired unless one has lived or worked extensively in country communities. In this big country of ours it is very easy for people from Sydney or Melbourne to think they know what country people need or want. I urge the Government to see whether the Australia Council can find a better way of coping with a cut in a very important small program. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.10) —We were last discussing the appropriations for the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment on 19 November. At that time I asked questions of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) regarding various aspects relating to the Northern Territory. Perhaps those answers are available. I guess the nation has noted the decision of the High Court of Australia regarding the Federal Government's appeal against mining by Peko-Wallsend Ltd in Kakadu National Park and the fact that the Federal Government's appeal has failed. I understand that last night in Paris the Federal Government indicated to the World Heritage Committee that it would not be pursuing World Heritage listing at this stage. In view of the decision taken yesterday and the telex from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, to Steve Hatton, the Northern Territory Chief Minister, which I understand gave an undertaking that the Federal Government would not proceed with listing of Kakadu stage 2 this year, what process, if any, is proposed whereby the Northern Territory Government will be consulted now regarding World Heritage listing of this area? There are no time restrictions now and perhaps the people in the north can be given a better go. The status of mining companies holding interests in Kakadu has been raised at Estimates committee meetings and conflicting views have been expressed as to the rights of those interest holders. I note that yesterday at Question Time the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) emphatically stated that no compensation would be paid to mining companies which had been assured by Labor Ministers in the Whitlam Government that they would be allowed to explore and develop their interests. In fact, we heard that from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) only a few weeks ago before his rather dramatic change in attitude. Given that the Minister is so certain that no compensation will be paid, I assume that he bases his views on some solid legal opinion to the effect that these mining companies have no right to compensation. I ask the Minister for Community Services to say whether a legal opinion on this matter has been sought and, if so, to provide the Committee with details of any such opinion. Can the Minister say whether the Government will be equally intransigent in the matter of compensating Aboriginal communities or organisations which have entered into agreements with mining companies, agreements which, incidentally, were approved by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding)? It seems to me that the whole situation is wide open and that there are very many matters that the Government must put its mind to in fairness to mining organisations, the Northern Territory Government, Aboriginal people and other people. As we are debating the appropriations of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, I believe it is appropriate that the Federal Government give answers to these very important questions. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.13) —In answer to Senator Newman's questions, certainly the Touring and Access Committee of the Australia Council has excessive representation from Sydney, on looking at it. I give the answer that I am sure has been given in the past, that these committees are not selected on a State basis, no matter how much that may seem to be desirable, any more than conservative Cabinets are picked on that basis. Senator Newman —The original people have been taken off. Senator GRIMES —I know they have and the reason for that was, as Senator Newman said partly, because of the travel vote. There are other committees with an excess of people from other States on them. Most of the committee's membership is in Sydney. The committee assesses applications and those assessments by and large are done in Sydney. The committee is in contact with members of the Tasmanian, Western Australian and other communities by telephone continually. I will raise the concerns Senator Newman has expressed. I certainly do not argue that it is desirable that we get as broad a representation as possible in a Federation such as this. I will bring the matters that she raised to the attention of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). Senator Kilgariff raised the matter of the listing of parts of Kakadu National Park under the World Heritage. As he said, in response to the decision of the High Court of Australia the Government has withdrawn in respect of the listing. We have available for Senator Kilgariff, if he would like it, a telex stating what has happened regarding Kakadu. I do not believe that this is the appropriate place for me to give a detailed answer on this matter. First of all, I am not the Minister responsible for this area. The Minister is in another place and will obviously be giving a detailed reply in the House of Representatives today. Secondly, a court case involving these leases has yet to be heard on 8 December in Darwin. I would not like to intrude and get myself into trouble by intervening in that court case having regard to my lack of knowledge at the moment. I think it is reasonable for me to say that this is a matter which has arisen overnight. If we had not been dealing with the Appropriation Bills the honourable senator would not have been able to raise this matter with me this morning. Quite frankly, I think it would be appropriate for him to ask a question on this matter during Question Time. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.16) —I would like to take the time of the Committee to address a very important issue in Australia at the moment. To some people this matter may not seem important but to the rural people of Queensland it is something that has to be addressed. I refer to the problem of kangaroo management. In Australia we have a management program which is supervised by the Australian Government and supported by every State Government. This responsible program is backed by scientists and representatives from farming communities, environmental organisations and animal welfare groups. Whilst the program may have its problems from time to time and some State governments may feel that they require a higher cull figure than the Federal Government allows, basically it has the support of all sections of the community. The management plan is controlled by the amount of exports allowed by the Federal Government. The State governments are required to submit their State-wide management plans to the Kangaroo Advisory Committee which is made up of scientists, environmentalists and representatives from the rural industries. This Committee is the arbitrator of the commercial cull allowed in the States. The State governments issue tags to registered shooters who must attach tags to any skins that are taken. If a shooter is found with an untagged skin in his possession, he is heavily fined. If he is caught on more than two or three occasions, he loses his livelihood by virtue of the fact that he loses his licence. When he sells his skins to a skin dealer, the skin dealer is required to make sure that the skins are tagged. Dealers are allowed to purchase only tagged skins. If they do not their licences are removed. Both shooter and dealer are required to send monthly returns into the State fauna departments and these figures are then balanced with Customs returns and checked against the export figures. The management program is overseen by dedicated officers from the State fauna departments and, as I mentioned, it has the support of all State governments, the Federal Government, responsible conservation and welfare groups such as the Queensland Conservation Council, the Wildlife Preservation Society, the World Wildlife Fund Australia and primary industry groups. All of those groups recognise that the management program is the most humane and efficient way to cull kangaroos while keeping their numbers at a level where all kangaroo species will survive. It also keeps kangaroo numbers at a level which enables the grazing and farming industries to survive. The present support for the program must remain. Unfortunately there are some irresponsible animal liberation groups which are trying to sabotage the Australian management program, and I name those groups as Greenpeace and the Fund For Animals in Australia Ltd. It is interesting to know that the President of the Fund for Animals in Australia, Mr Richard Jones, is fourth on its Senate ticket in New South Wales. I believe that any view the Fund for Animals puts forward is not a balanced view. We must question the motives of the Greenpeace organisation and we must understand what it is all about. With the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) and Senator Georges, I have visited a number of rural areas when the kangaroo problem has been investigated by sensible people, but every time that we go out there the Greenpeace movement has a representative there with some of the most expensive camera equipment and other gear. Its representatives fly around the world first class. We should question what they are all about. Are they there to protect the welfare of animals or are they there to protect their own very expensive lifestyles, living in the fast lane and staying in the most expensive and best accommodation around the world? I question this because they never come up with any alternative. What alternative is there if Australia's management program is destroyed? People can criticise it and condemn it, but they must also come up with an alternative, and this is what these irresponsible animal welfare groups never do. Kangaroos exist in plague proportions because of man, because man has changed the environment, because man has grown crops that allow the kangaroos to feed, because man has provided water where water never previously existed. We have changed the environment to the kangaroo's benefit and they are now in plague proportions in Queensland. On an average they are destroying $5,000 worth of each grain grower's crops. They are also destroying the grazier's ability to survive when the districts become dry and drought stricken. I warn these groups and the people overseas, who are falling for the propaganda that is being put out by some of these irresponsible animal welfare and animal liberation groups, that they are going to force graziers and farmers to take action to control the kangaroo population, but they will not be controlled in the humane way that is presently allowed. I see Senator Sanders coming into the chamber, as he runs through the door. I challenge him to put down his alternative plan to control the numbers of kangaroos. We are seeing the Greenpeace movement overseas spreading its policies of misrepresentation among the peoples of Europe and America. I believe that most people in Australia understand the need to control the kangaroo numbers but I believe these animal liberation groups are having some effect overseas. They have got a number of prominent sports people to condemn kangaroo running shoes and kangaroo products. They are putting out propaganda with photos of sportsmen running across kangaroo bodies. That is very emotional. But I say to Senator Sanders and to everyone interested in this problem: If we take away the management program, what have we left? The farmers and graziers will survive. What will happen is that instead of there being skilled shooters who can shoot accurately, hit a kangaroo in the head and kill it in one second, going in amateurs with inferior rifles and gear will come in from the towns. They will be invited on to the properties to shoot those kangaroos and they will shoot everything that moves. They will not be able to shoot accurately and they will not pursue a wounded animal. The kangaroos will be culled in a manner that will not be as humane as is the case at the moment. The farmers also will take action. They will take action that will kill not only the kangaroos. They will take their stock out of their paddocks, fence off the paddocks and poison the water. Everything will be killed, including bird life and the kangaroos. We must stick to this management program unless someone is able to come up with an alternative program; and no one has been able to do that. We take people out into the bush, show them the problem and say: `What is the alternative?. After being out there for two or three days, most sensible people will say: `This is the only way to go'. Some people come up with the idea that we must have shooters who work for the Government. But that presupposes that all shooters who are now shooting professionally would become public servants. They would not shoot any more accurately; they would not kill any more humanely. We would just transfer from the private sector across to the public sector the same 6,000 people who are culling kangaroos at the moment. Some people say: `Let us put in reserves for the kangaroos, put big fences around them and keep them in there'. My answer to that is to ask: Who will cull those kangaroos once they breed and the numbers increase? There must be a culling program; there is no alternative. In every country where there is wildlife, that wildlife is culled. In South Africa the antelopes and elephants in the wildlife parks are culled. As the environment for the wildlife is made more complete, the wildlife survives and propagates. When one takes away the natural predators, the numbers increase. We have increased kangaroo numbers by destroying dingoes. By baiting dingoes, we have destroyed the kangaroo's natural predator. We have also made their environment-- Senator Chaney —More predictable; more reliable. Senator BOSWELL —More reliable. We have increased the numbers. If one looks at journals from Leichhardt and other early explorers, they make comments like `We saw 13 kangaroos today' or `We saw five kangaroos today'. I went out with Senator Sanders in Roma. We saw about 1,000 kangaroos in two or three hours. But the day was wet and the kangaroos had dispersed out into the scrub. But I could take Senator Sanders or anyone else interested in this problem out today around the grazing or farming areas. There are thousands and thousands of kangaroos destroying the crops of the Queensland grain growers. I make this statement to the Committee today because I believe that people overseas should realise what is going on. No alternative has been put up by the animal welfare groups as to how Australia can cope with the kangaroo problem. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Coleman) —Order! Before I call the next speaker, I remind the Committee that this is not a time for second reading speeches. It is a time for the passing of votes for particular departments. Honourable senators have had the opportunity at other stages to participate in legitimate debate on this matter. I do not intend allowing anyone else to give a second reading speech. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.31) —I want to complain very strongly about the contemptuous way in which officers of the Australia Council and, in particular, its Literature Board responded to questions asked in the Senate Estimates committee hearings and their determined refusal to provide information which should be made available to honourable senators. In particular, I refer to a series of questions I asked about the subsidy of magazines through the Literature Board. I wish to press this point with the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) because there is not much merit in providing facilities to honourable senators to pursue matters such as this at the Senate Estimates committee hearings if there is no genuine attempt to respond to questions by officers who have a duty to keep this chamber properly informed, particularly when it involves the spending of large amounts of public money. During the Estimates committee hearings I asked questions relating to the magazines program of the Literature Board of the Australia Council. Senator Grimes —Do you have the page there? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —In the Senate Estimates Committee D Hansard the questions start on the bottom right hand corner of page 615. In the additional information to Estimates Committee D the response is on page 23 of the section relating to the Australia Council, about three-quarters of the way through the book. It is page 261 of that book. I asked what were the grants per issue of each magazine and the reasons for variations per issue. The response on page 24 gives the amounts but not the reasons for the variations between the grants per issue. Some magazines work out to about $6,000 per issue, such as Meanjin. Scripsi works out at $6,000 per issue, Southerly at $5,000 and so on. Quadrant works out at about $2,500 per issue. I asked what was the reason for the variation. That section of the question was treated with contempt. There was no response. I would like one. The information that was given to me was public information, known and readily available. I asked: Does the Literature Board subsidise the `Australian Book Review' and if so, by what method and what is the per issue amount? I was intrigued to find out that it is subsidised but it is not on the list provided because it is claimed that it is published from the promotional budget and has been given a subsidy of $40,000 to produce 11 issues. I do not take issue with the fact that that is the chosen way of providing the money. All I say is that it would be nice if we were provided with that information without having to go through the back door to press for it. I simply ask: Why on earth is this regarded as something different, as a promotional matter for Australian books, when, as I understand it, the major function of many of the other magazines is to promote Australian writers and books? Be that as it may, I do not want to press the matter. I go to the next question. I asked: What is the Literature Board's policy on subsidising magazines? That was roughly the way my question was interpreted. I must say that this is a matter of grave concern to me. I mentioned that Stephen Murray-Smith, the editor of Overland, had claimed that the Literature Board judges each magazine separately without regard to any uniform principles. I asked: Is this so? Reading the responses I found it very difficult to see any coherent answer to what I was asking. As honourable senators will see, on page 262 of the additional information the Board replied by saying that it had redefined its subsidy program for literary magazines and henceforth the magazine grant would be an annual grant. That is not the criterion I was seeking. The Board said it will not be subsidising magazines of regional interest and subscriptions of under 500. That is great. That is a statement. The Board continued: The major grant recipients with the exception of two magazines; Australian Drama Studies and Australian Literary Studies, will be required to pay 30 per cent of each subsidy in payment to literary contributors (poetry, fiction and literary articles and reviews). That is okay. But I am still waiting to find out what are the criteria on which the money is spent. We have found out one criterion on which it will not be spent but, quite frankly, that is a grossly inadequate response. We are entitled to something better than that. I also asked: How does the Literature Board consider applications . . . I guess the response I received was reasonable. It was that the Board sits down and considers them. But it did not say on what basis it considers them, which goes, once again, to the question of criteria. I then asked: What are the print runs and stated circulation of all magazines in receipt of grants from the Literature Board? Professor Yerbury, at the time of the Estimates committee hearing, said: We can certainly give you the print run and their stated circulation. The reply I received-it is on page 263 of the additional information-is to the contrary. It states: In the past a number of magazines have objected to Council providing this information. Officers of Council are writing to the editors of all magazines to obtain permission to provide this information to the Senate Estimates Committee on a confidential basis. I say that is absolute bunkum. It is disgraceful that the Australia Council should pretend that people who receive public money should not tell the public who provide it what the circulation of their magazines is. To pretend that some commercial disadvantage may be suffered is incredible. Senator Brownhill —Most people usually skite about it. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Some magazines may be using phoney circulation figures to try to drum up some advertising; I do not know. What I do know is that if public money is being spent it is incredible that the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment-obviously, the Government is not concerned; it has not taken any steps to require any action-is quite happy to say: `Oh well, if the recipients do not like it we will not tell you what the circulation of their magazines is'. What incredible nonsense! It should be a condition of the grant that this information be made public. I hope that the Minister, who I know is very sensible in the spending of public money, will assist me in my endeavours to get some facts that the public deserves to have. We are now into November and this question, of course, was asked back in September. The Australia Council said it would write and find out those organisations that might allow this information to be revealed. I am not terribly surprised that we have no answer yet. Frankly, I do not expect one because that is the traditional treatment that this Senate gets from these people. I find it totally unsatisfactory. I then asked: Are magazines subsidised other than through the magazines program eg. by funding an editor. I am assured that the Literature Board does not fund editors. I have not the evidence in front of me and I have not had time yet to go through in detail the Australia Council's annual report, but I had been under the impression that, one way or another, some editors had in fact been funded for specific purposes through the Australia Council. I suppose I will just have to go through the list and check up on that answer. The reason I will have to do that is that, frankly, I have no confidence that my questions will be properly answered. My next question was: What is the ratio of subsidy to total cost for all magazines supported and what is their total production costs, gross and net? That seemed to me to be a reasonable question because it may well be that we are, in some instances, almost entirely supporting some magazines and providing only top-up funding in others. I am staggered to note that there is simply no response. The Australia Council does not say: `We will not give an answer'. The replies end at question (f) and this question was question (g). I do not mind too much if we have at least an attempt at an intelligent response to a question, but I resist violently the suggested right of a department to ignore totally, with contempt, questions asked by a senator. I would hope that these people can do a little better than this. I must say in general that I am very unhappy about some of the funding that is going on in this area. There does appear to be some criterion being applied to funding of magazines, which I do not understand, which is not evident from the table printed at page 262 and which does not stand up and bark at one. I mean to say, is success and the printing of large numbers of issues per year a criterion which prompts the diminishing of the per issue grant by the Australia Council, or does it relate to quality or to politics? What on earth does it relate to? I have no idea, but I think the Australian public who finance these magazines deserve a far more honest, a far more accurate and a far fuller response than we have received. I repeat: I object to the contemptuous manner in which the Australia Council has responded to these questions. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(10.44) —I want briefly to raise three points concerning our national collections. The first of these relates to the Australian National Gallery. On questioning the Director of the National Gallery, I was most dissatisfied with the answers which I received concerning the expenditure of half a million dollars just recently for changes to the Gallery shop and cloak room. I asked Mr Mollison why it was that this work was being done. He said that, at the time when the form and the size of the building were determined, there were no plans at all for travelling exhibitions coming to the Gallery and that now that international travelling exhibitions were coming and we have proved the success of them, both artistically and economically, we would like to have facilities that made it easy for us to manage such shows. I drew his attention to the fact that there had been a long gestation period for this building and that I thought some of these sorts of things would have been organised along the way. But he said that when he came to Canberra 19 years ago the shape of the galleries and all the gallery spaces had already been determined. I asked him whether that meant that the design was finished and fixed, as far as the building was concerned, all those years ago. Mr Mollison said: `Yes'. I find that very hard to believe, although I must accept him as an honourable man, but if that is the case, why is it so? Obviously this Government cannot necessarily take the blame for it. I believe that the departmental officers must have had some dealings in the matter over the years. I find it quite alarming that, so short a time after the building has been completed, the taxpayers of Australia need to find another half a million dollars to reorganise things. I do not intend to dwell on it, but it is of concern. The second item I wish to raise concerns the National Maritime Museum. Members of the Estimates committee asked a number of questions on this matter. We wish the museum well. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the 1975 Pigott Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections recommended outstations for the National Maritime Museum. I also draw the Committee's attention to the fact that this has been a very successful way of operating the national maritime museum in the United Kingdom. My reason for raising the issue now is that we currently have a Commonwealth Government review of museums. A matter which should receive the attention of senators and, I think, of the public is that this could well be questioned or even discarded under that review. I sincerely hope that it is not discarded. I think there are a number of reasons why it is very valuable in something like a maritime museum, especially in a large country with federated States, to try to proceed, if we possibly can, with outstations to the Maritime Museum. I raise that for the attention of the Committee. Finally, I raise another matter which is of concern-that is, the protection of our movable cultural heritage. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that legislation was passed by the Parliament last year, before I arrived here, but it has not yet been proclaimed. I understand that at the time it was regarded as being a very urgent piece of legislation which had to receive the attention of the Senate speedily. But it has not been proclaimed. After questioning during the Estimates committee hearing, we were told that the reason for the delay was that a list was in the process of being compiled. The legislation I am referring to is the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act. The answer given during the Estimates committee hearing was that it is hoped to target both a specialist and a general audience in that program to ensure that the widest possible coverage is given so that when the list is drawn up, and the legislation is put into place, as far as possible the Australian public will be aware of the provisions of the law. I asked what lead time there would be. I was advised that it is hoped that the legislation will be proclaimed towards the end of next year and that there would be an information program. In this financial year a sum of $50,000 has been put aside. The Department has set a timetable of about 18 months for the proclamation in order to prepare this control list. We were told that the Customs Act still applies and will do so until the proclamation of the Act. But I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that there is very serious concern amongst museums in this country about the delay. I do not believe that we need to wait all that time for a control list to be drawn up. It seems to me-and I am sure that museum directors would agree-that we are running a very great risk that unscrupulous people, knowing that the legislation has been passed and not yet proclaimed, will try to take material out of this country before the legislation is proclaimed. The concern in the museum community is that important items may be lost during this period. I fail to see why an interim list of sorts could not be prepared so that the legislation could be proclaimed as soon as possible. I ask the Government to look at this to see why we cannot have an interim list in the meantime and earlier proclamation than is currently planned. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.51) —I shall answer Senator Newman's questions first. One of the things I like about dealing with the appropriations, especially those of departments with which I am not normally associated, is that I learn things. As Manager of Government Business I have been collecting a list of legislation which has been brought to me which I have been told is desperately urgent to get through but which has yet to be proclaimed. I thank Senator Newman for adding to that list. Frankly, I do not understand why legislation is introduced in such a way and then there is a huge lead time to its proclamation. I understand that in the case of the Bill mentioned by Senator Newman proclamation will occur either towards the end of 1987 or on 1 July 1987. Senator Newman pointed out that some people can take advantage of the delay, and I shall look into that. Her views on the National Maritime Museum and outstations will be sent to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). The review should be concluded early in the new year. I can assure Senator Newman that her comments will be taken into account by that review. I must say that on face value I find two of the statements that were apparently made to Senator Newman by Mr Mollison, to say the least, fairly incredible. I refer to the statements that the shapes of the galleries were established 19 years ago and that the staff were not aware that they would be taking part in travelling exhibitions. I shall refer that matter to the Minister for an answer for Senator Newman and for an answer for me. In answer to Senator Michael Baume, all I can say is that as long as I have been in this place, with various governments, the sorts of problems that he has had we have had with our friends in the area of the arts. I thought Senator Michael Baume would know more about them than I; he is more likely to have moved in those circles than I. Clearly the answers to his questions about the subsidies for magazines are unsatisfactory. If the people responsible for the magazines which have been funded have the right to tell the Australia Council, to use the colloquial, to go jump when they are asked for their circulation and publication figures, the Australia Council should not only have the right, in my view, but the duty to cease the funding. I shall refer that to the Minister and see what sort of an angry reply I get from him. I notice in the annual report of the Australia Council that the Australian Book Review-it seems to me from my reading of the report, and I am not very good at reading reports-not only gets a subsidy out of the promotional vote Senator Michael Baume talked about but also gets a literary magazine subsidy under `Literary Magazines (Contributors Fees and Other Expenses).' This is mentioned on page 94. A figure of $17,000 is given. I will seek some clarification. There is a multiplicity of tables in the annual report. We might have to add the amounts together. I refer to question (g), which Senator Michael Baume rightly points out has not been answered. The more courteous response would have been for the Council to say that it had not yet compiled the answer and that it would send him the answer. Apparently that is the case. If I may be absolutely indulgent, I am not a great supporter of councils and statutory commissions. I believe that governments are elected to govern and I believe the principle so often espoused by the previous Government and governments of my political persuasion, that by handing over the functions of government to organisations such as this one is taking politics out of the matter and putting it at arm's length, is not true. But I do not know whether that view will be taken much notice of by the powers that be from either side of the chamber. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.55) —I thank the Minister very much indeed. It was the sort of response which I would have expected from him. I want to raise a couple of small matters, I suppose largely emerging from the annual report of the Australia Council which we received last night. The Minister touched on this question in dealing with arm's length grants. I am not certain to what extent it is realistic to claim that grants are arm's length when the Government determines what the policy will be and then appoints people to the boards knowing in general their attitudes. For example, one would assume that the Government would be well aware of the approach of the research officer of the Victorian Trades Hall Council, Ms Caswell, when it appointed her to the Community Arts Board because she was one of the organisers of the extreme Left conference in Sydney earlier this year. No doubt the Government would have been aware that she would have a strong and committed view about the need to divert increasing volumes of funds from traditional arts clients, if you like, into the trade union movement. Since she has been on that Board the amount of money going to the Victorian Trades Hall Council has, not surprisingly, increased considerably as it has to many other trade union groups which, as I mentioned on another occasion, appear to have become one of the major patrons of the arts. The Minister and I discussed this matter before and I shall not raise it again in detail. The problem the Minister has raised can become very difficult indeed. For example, page 75 of the annual report shows that the Palestine Information Office received $5,000 from Mr Cohen's Department, the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, for an exhibition of cultural traditions of Palestine using paintings and photographs. Whether the exhibition was worth while I shall not go into but I would have thought that the Palestine Information Office, being an offshoot of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, as I understand it, would not seem to be an appropriate body to receive governmental funding. I also note that page 74 shows that the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union has received artists fees of $2,500 for a mural. There is probably something appropriate about the ship painters and dockers receiving artists fees; after all, they have lifted murder and standover tactics to some kind of art form. I am disappointed that this union, which to my mind has demonstrated its principles as those that one would not expect to be supported by the Government, should have received this kind of funding. I am also concerned about many of the non-union recipients of these funds. For example, I would like to know what the Community Media Association of South Australia does with its annual program of $30,000. That is simply how it is described, as an annual program. The Community Media Association appears on the face of it to be an association involved with promoting ideas, propaganda, spreading the word, conveying news, information and presumably a polemic. I would simply like to know what this money is spent on. When a block grant is shown as going just to an annual program I think we are entitled to know what the annual program involves. In so many of these areas we see just block grants going to groups such as the union movement. Professor Yerbury said that this meant that the money was being devolved, it was removing the expense of administration from the boards to the union movement. To that extent there may be some administrative merit, particularly at a time when the Australia Council is coming under some financial pressure, but I think there is still a requirement for us to be at least aware of what goes on under these block grants. I would also say that it is interesting to note that the Australia Council has cut its cloth to suit the changed environment by producing what I would take to be a much less expensive annual report than it has produced in the past. In bulk this is about one-third or a quarter of the size of previous years' reports. I am not saying that the previous reports were bad. In fact, they were very informative and they were the only basis on which we initially found out what some of this money was being spent on. For example, we saw in an annual report of the Australia Council that money going to the Telecommunication Technical Officers Association was for a series of posters which attacked the concept of automation-real Luddite stuff. This high quality intellectual input, financed by the taxpayers of Australia, was revealed to us fortunately because the previous annual reports had pretty pictures of the more asinine things on which our money was being spent. I hope that the new format will not inhibit the Australia Council from continuing to reveal some of the more ridiculous grants that are made by it. I also want to express some concerns about the continued funding of Theatre ACT. This has been an unmitigated failure. On page 243 of the Hansard of Senate Estimates Committee D the Theatre Board responded to my questions on this matter. I asked what the funding allocation was, how many productions and performances had been mounted and would be mounted and whether the Australia Council had put any special conditions on the company to ensure that its past track record was not repeated. The response was that the Theatre Board allocated a general grant of $64,200 to Theatre ACT in 1985-86 on the understanding that, as a result of the restructuring of the company, only one production would be undertaken during the 1986 calendar year. In undertaking this action, the Board expressed considerable confidence in the company's new artistic director, Don Mamouney, and the program envisaged for the company. What I really want to know is, if $64,000 went to Theatre ACT for one production, what was the money used for? Was it used to pay off debts? That amount does seem expensive for a production. If this grant involved cleaning up the mess from 1985 when only 16 productions were mounted compared to 27 the year before and 26 the year before that, I think that perhaps the Theatre Board should come clean because I can tell the Committee that there is a great deal of concern in theatrical circles in the Australian Capital Territory, in which the Minister very kindly said that I tend to move more than he, about what has happened here. There is a view that Theatre ACT should have been allowed to go to the wall and that a totally different body should have taken over the functions, and the funding that is available. In fact, Theatre ACT has now changed its name to Fortune Theatre. I hope that it has better fortune than it had as Theatre ACT, but the interesting thing is that that is revitalising or reviving a name that did exist, with some distinction, in the Australian Capital Territory some time ago. I do not necessarily regard the Matilda magazine as the ideal source from which to quote, but an item in a recent issue does bear on this aspect, as I understand it, fairly accurately. The article states: The latest episode in the efforts to establish a viable professional theatre company in Canberra looks like being particularly tacky. The Australia Council and the local Arts Development Board have put their money (some $200 000)- This year the Australia Council gave $64,000. I wonder whether the local Arts Development Board, which is also publicly funded, has also assisted to fund this body. In any event the article goes on: . . . have put their money (some $200 000) behind the presently defunct Theatre ACT- it was defunct when this article was written- Since its inception Theatre ACT has had a pretty crummy record-bad direction, frequent failures and an emphasis on employing out-of-towners. This years grant from the Australia Council has been made on condition that this patchy record is improved. Presently the company exists in name only- and so on. I just make the point that in the Australian Capital Territory, as I understand it, there was such resentment and anger that at the time a petition was drawn up and circulated on this matter. I do not know whether it was ever presented. I really would like to know what would be the consequences of a failure by the new group apparently running Theatre ACT or Fortune Theatre to perform as required. I wonder on what basis the Australia Council now thinks that what was a disaster area will be transformed by Mr Mamouney. The other brief point I want to make is that during the May Senate Estimates Committee sittings we asked a series of questions about the publication of a four-page brochure. Actually, it was two sheets-one sheet of ordinary paper and a harder board-like external sheet. I suppose altogether we could call that eight pages. We asked questions back in May about the cost, which was $72 per brochure, and we got totally unsatisfactory responses. However, on 19 September 1986 we eventually received a reply to a question that was asked on 27 May, which was that there was an increase from 17 to 39 in the number of plates required to make this brochure. That was the reason for the blowing out of that cost-39 plates to produce this brochure. What intrigued me was this response: The estimate for 17 plates- on which the first estimate was based- . . . was based on a photocopy of the original mock up. The design was not finalised at this stage. Several design changes were required by the Museum before it was finalised. These changes required extra plates. But then it says: Background colours and tints in the flags- which were small elements of the thing- were printed in specials rather than processed colours. This was decided as the best way to achieve the quality and registration in the short time available. I am assured by printers that this is absolute total and complete nonsense, is absolutely unjustifiable and that there are plenty of ways of getting a high quality product without going to 39 plates to produce a two-sheet brochure. I am overjoyed to see that when Senator Newman asked Mr Sergi from the Australian Maritime Museum about what it was now doing about printing he said that the Museum now uses the Commonwealth Government Printer. The sort of self-indulgence that was demonstrated on this matter and having to wait six months to get a coherent reply on such a simple matter-how many plates, what was the reason for the increase, and so on-is simply unsatisfactory. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.09) —I think I should just put some balance into this discussion. Senator Michael Baume and I had a discussion about this matter the other night. Sure, some of the organisations which are funded by the Australia Council would not meet with Senator Michael Baume's approval. Some of them, I dare say, would not meet with my approval. But I point out that there is a great diversity. As well as the Palestinians, the Finns on several occasions, the Ukrainians, the Hungarians, the Portuguese, the Arabic groups and the Croatian groups were funded. I notice that the New South Wales branch of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union has received funding and, from memory, it is quite a respectable trade union compared with its colleague in Victoria. I notice that funding was provided for the purpose of producing a mural. I am very much in favour of murals. Even Senator Newman might agree that the mural which was painted on the Trades Hall in Launceston, although it might be a bit revolutionary for her, adds to the city as do other murals of that type. I remember the fuss and the extensive discussion that took place in respect of the brochure that Senator Michael Baume mentioned. I cannot add anything further; I will find out whether the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) can. The group in South Australia mentioned by the honourable senator, a group whose name escapes me for the moment, is part of the art and working life program of which he disapproves so much and of which I approve. I do not think I shall rehash that matter. I will certainly not enter into the row here about Theatre ACT. I can get further details for Senator Baume. I know that the local Arts Development Board supports it as well as the Arts Council of the Australian Capital Territory. I know that the grant is to be used to train an ensemble of actors as part of an effective 1986-87 program. I know that there is a terrible amount of controversy in the Australian Capital Territory and I also know that there are two sides to that controversy. I certainly do not want to get in the middle by saying anything silly here in case I have to go to a social function in town in the near future. I know that there is a very effective lobby by another arts group in town against Theatre ACT. I am not in a position to judge the merits of it. All I know is that this matter creates more and more controversy as the evening waxes moister. I do not want to be involved in that controversy. I will leave it to the Minister to respond to Senator Baume. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.13) — I would like to thank the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) for his courteous response to my previous questions. I rise now on the last issue that I wish to raise in respect of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. I do not intend to ask a question so much as to try to fire a warning shot across the bows of the Australian Heritage Commission. I think the Minister would be aware of the fact that I have had a long and very active involvement in the National Trust and, consequently, over the years I have had a number of dealings with the Heritage Commission, one of which was indirectly with Senator Grimes himself. I am a bit worried, for a number of reasons, about the Heritage Commission and where it is going. I would just like to outline briefly my concerns. First of all, as the Committee would know, during the Estimates committee hearings in the earlier part of this year, I was very concerned that we did not look as though we were going to get any more funding for the Port Arthur project. This turned out to be the case in this year's Budget and funding for what was regarded by the Heritage Commission as a vital national project has been stopped. Of course, that is not the fault of the Heritage Commission; it is the fault of the Government. I draw the Committee's attention to the Heritage Commission's annual report for 1984-85, which I have not had for very long and which describes the project in the following terms: . . . an outstanding example of successful Federal-State co-operation, enhancing one of Australia's principal tourist destinations. In 1985, the project won the Pacific Area Travel Association heritage award in recognition of the delicate balance maintained between the conflicting demands of a modern tourist destination of national importance and a site of prime historical and archaeological significance. The report went on to draw attention to the education program at the site and said that it was in the forefront of new techniques for teaching history. It also drew attention to the fact that the continuation of the project had been proposed as a 4-year program and that it supported the proposal. That is fine, and, of course, I agree with all that the Commission said. The Commission accepted the Government's decision and quietly went along with it. Perhaps that should not worry me. However, I am worried about the Commission's behaviour when it comes to the natural environment. The Heritage Commission seems to have a different standard in that area. I believe that the Commission has a very real and important role to play in advising government on heritage issues. However, it is an adviser; it is not a participant in the game or a player on the stage. Whichever description one might like to use, the Commission is an adviser and, as such, it should remain in the background and not have two standards of behaviour, depending on whether it is concerned with the man-made heritage or the natural heritage. I challenge the Commission to show that it is not doing just that. For example, at the last Estimates committee hearings I asked for a list of the publications that were planned by the Commission for the coming year. That list included all the sorts of things that one would expect to see-publications on National Estate themes, technical publications, and reprints of previous publications. Everything in the list sounds very technical and proper in terms of the Commission's role until one suddenly sees a publication which virtually jumps out of the page, such as a publication entitled `Focusing on Woodchipping'. The Department of Primary Industry might put out a publication on woodchipping but I question the motives of the Australian Heritage Commission in spending $5,000 on putting out a forests leaflet entitled `Focusing on Woodchipping'. The list also contains publications on things such as Aboriginal heritage and wet tropics and conservation posters. The publication of this material is all reasonably understandable. But why has money been spent on the publication `Focusing on Woodchipping'? Botanists were recently sent by the Heritage Commission to the Jackeys Marsh area in Tasmania. Instead of reporting to the Australian Heritage Commission, the botanists made public comments to the media which have been featured in a number of Australian papers. I think that is improper; it is not their role. It is certainly not their role when one sees a double standard applying in respect of something as important to Australia as Port Arthur. The Commission did not go public in that area. It fulfilled its role by properly advising the Government. However, I think it is exceeding its role in the woodchipping area. I also draw the Committee's attention to the 1986 summary of resolutions and recommendations of the Australian Forestry Council, which I also have not had for long. On 12 June the Commonwealth and State forestry Ministers passed the following resolution: Council noted the concern expressed by its Standing Committee at the potential impact of National Estate listings on production forestry in Australia. 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. I believe it is very serious that there should be a misuse of the National Estate listing process coupled with a misconception that is widespread in Australia that National Estate listing is equivalent to national park status. I believe the Heritage Commission must be much more careful about how it vets items which are placed on the national register. I recognise that the Commission has very few resources with which to do an enormous job that covers the whole of the country. Nevertheless, in my experience of the Commission over the years, when it comes to the man-made heritage it relies very heavily on the expertise which is provided to it by the national trusts of the various States as to whether a building, for example, is worthy of being placed on the national register. As I have seen the system operate, the Commission has had very little input in the vetting of those lists. So I can only suspect that the same procedure operates when it comes to putting the natural environment on the National Estate listing. If this is so, knowing the politics of the conservation movement these days, I have to query whether sufficient expertise is being provided when it comes to making recommendations to the Heritage Commission for the listing of some National Estate areas on our lists. I urge the Government to look at this area and see whether perhaps more resources can be given to the Heritage Commission to check out these nominations because I feel that many of them are very suspect. We cannot always expect the Heritage Commission to apply the same care and loving attention of the National Trust members when it comes to the careful vetting that goes on of the man-made heritage. In these days of high politics we cannot expect that that same care and attention to strict accuracy will be given when it comes to the vetting of natural environment items that are put forward to the Heritage Commission for listing. I draw the attention of both the Heritage Commission and the chamber to the danger that lies before us in relation to the Australian Heritage Commission. I think that items are not being carefully enough checked before they go on to the list. I believe the Heritage Commission has to be very careful that it does not get drawn into the political vortex; it must stay as an adviser to government. I do not believe that it should be putting an economic argument to government. There are other proper avenues from which government can receive economic advice, but that is currently a matter in dispute. I believe that the Heritage Commission should stick to its trade and advise purely on conservation values. It is important that that voice be heard in Canberra. Nevertheless, I feel it could do with more resources and perhaps some more professionalism in checking listings. Finally, I draw attention to the fact that there is a concern in National Trust circles-I know that the Heritage Commission also shares this concern-that we are not doing enough as a nation to support the owners of historic buildings. A proposal has been before the Government-I acknowledge that it has been there for many years, but it is long overdue-that tax incentives be given to the owners of historic buildings; not just any old historic buildings but items on the National Estate Register. The 1984 Australian Labor Party platform stated that the Party would review a package of measures, including tax incentives for owners of a heritage area or item who undertook to preserve it in perpetuity. These owners also have to undertake to make it accessible to the public who have contributed by way of tax forgone to the tax incentives. But the Australian Heritage Commission believes that the Government should now act in accordance with its declared platform to provide tax relief for restoration and preservation, and I draw the Government's attention to this. It is time it acted on this. I believe it would not be a huge cost. The Australian Heritage Commission has advised the Government that Treasury would forgo approximately $3m, based on the Register of approximately 6,000 buildings. Of course that makes no allowance for the spin-off benefit to the economy through increased building and tourism. I urge the Government to give speedy attention to the recommendations of the National Trust over many years, to the Heritage Commission and to its own platform to introduce tax deductions to help owners of historic buildings that are on the National Register. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.24) —I have little argument with what Senator Newman said, despite the fact that we have had our differences in the past in this area. It is an area in which judgments are made and where people disagree strongly with those judgments. Unfortunately it is an area in which costs can be added. Just so Senator Newman will not think that the National Trust is the only body I have clashed with, I can tell her that only yesterday I discovered the existence of an aged nursing home in New South Wales which badly needs upgrading and fixing. It cannot be fixed up because, at the request of the local office of the National Trust, the Australian Heritage Commission listing has been made and that building is subject to a preservation order. It is a very nice place, but not that nice. The thing that fascinates me is that it is less than 40 years old. If we are getting to the stage where listings are going to be made of buildings such as that, which I think are of dubious value, we will have to look at not only giving tax concessions to people to preserve buildings-- Senator Newman —Is it on the Register? Senator GRIMES —On the Register? Senator Newman —On the National Estate, not the National Trust Register? Senator GRIMES —It is on the local National Trust Register. Senator Newman —That is not the same thing. Senator GRIMES —I know. The local National Trust office in New South Wales urged that the building be put on the Register and, through the New South Wales Government, put its preservation order on it. It is very difficult. As I said in another case, which the honourable senator will know about, if we are going to add to the cost to people in extraordinary ways, perhaps we ought to use some government or National Trust funds to compensate people. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Aboriginal Affairs Proposed expenditure, $271,391,000. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.25) —I would like to commend the communities at Yuendumu and Ernabella on their pioneering work in public television. During the winter recess I visited the Ernabella community in my State and saw at first hand how the television facility was being run very creatively in that area on a shoestring budget. It was obvious that there was a great deal of community involvement in the filming and other activities, and there is similar involvement at Yuendumu. I think it is very important for Aboriginal communities to be able to make decisions about just how they are going to use media technology and how they will use it to maintain their culture. What I would like to know from the Minister at the table, the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), is what plans the Government has for extending the service which is now being developed at both of these places, to give both an entertainment and cultural service to those areas. I understand that this is currently not a matter of priority within the Department. But it was obvious to me that due to this type of centralising community activity, which was expressed through the public television activity, there was much better morale within the community and less petrol sniffing and drunkenness and other types of anti-social behaviour than was happening in some of the other communities I visited which had no such similar cultural focus. I am pleased that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is continuing to take an interest and has made some funds available for this. However, it is only a very small amount of funds and it appears to be being spent in only limited areas, and I therefore would like some comment on this from the Minister. I would also like to take up the point, which was provided in a written answer to a question asked during the Estimates committee hearing, of the potential for expansion of Aboriginal broadcasting, which has been restricted by the fixed funding for the Public Broadcasting Foundation. In fact all public broadcasters are affected in this way, despite various election pledges by the Government. I believe some type of special grant, which would help in this area, could be granted through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I ask the Minister what plans the Government has because during the Estimates committee proceedings I searched in vain for this. I would also like to commend the Department for the hope that the community development employment projects have restored to many communities. I shall be watching what effort goes into getting skilled people on site to enable communities to start on-going projects. I was particularly impressed by some of the projects where some members of a community were being trained by carpenters and other tradesmen to develop sufficient skills to build their own housing. This program does not seem to have received as much money as has been given for suburban houses just being plonked, if I may put it that way, out in the bush, which was certainly what I saw in various other areas. I was particularly impressed with the community near Ceduna where the people were working with local tradesmen trying to develop their own sites. Senator Messner —Koonibba. Senator VIGOR —Yes, at Koonibba. This was not evident in other areas and apparently that is not the way in which the money is being spent. During my tour of communities in the winter break I saw several examples of quite inappropriate buildings. I would like to know what type of consultation is carried out with the people concerned. We see buildings, which are just basically suburban houses, being used to house up to 24 and even 30 people because of the method of living that these people have chosen. That causes real problems because the sewerage facilities, the septic facilities, are unable to cope. With a little more thought and Aboriginal involvement in the planning-as I believe has happened at Uluru; I was impressed by what was happening in that community-the money could have been much better spent and many of the problems of health and disease avoided. I would like a comment from the Minister on that, and on the likely practical outcome of a meeting being held right now in Alice Springs of some 120 people from the Aboriginal health field. I would like to know how Aboriginal health will be affected by these types of spending programs. It would be useful if we could have an indication whether the statements by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or those of the Aboriginal Development Commission are the more reliable on the transfer of housing related functions of the community management and services program during 1985-86. The Department says that there was agreement about staff beforehand and that the balance of moneys unexpended was handed over. The Commission says that commensurate levels of staffing and funding have not been transferred. It is very difficult when we get these conflicting statements. The Commission suggests that the reasons for the disparity and attempts at rectifying the situation are matters more appropriately answered by the Department. I would really like to know whether the Minister can tell us what is going on in this area as there seems to be some contradiction between the answers given to me, or not given to me, by the Commission and the statements by the Department. In another answer during the Estimates committees, the Department indicated that it will establish an area office at Marla as part of its central region restructure. I would like some indication of when work is expected to be completed on that office. I have already had indications that communities are having increased difficulties dealing with staff at such a distance. The staff who deal with them are at Port Augusta and Adelaide. The people already have to undertake an enormous amount of onerous travel, which must cost them and, if they are subsidised, the taxpayers, a lot more money than would be involved in establishing a proper facility and office at Marla. Generally, it seems that the Department is tackling a very difficult problem, and I commend it on the work that it is doing. But it seems that there is some need for the Parliament to be informed about the priorities that I have questioned in those areas. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.35) —The point I wish to raise relates to the community development employment projects scheme. As the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) will be aware, this scheme involves some of the best community development projects operating in Australia. Its benefit to Aboriginal communities has been immense. However, my concern is not with the operation of those projects in the various Aboriginal communities, which as I have said are operating exceptionally well, but rather with the operations of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs with regard to that scheme. My difficulty arises from the fact that, while it is a community development scheme, the funding, as the Minister will be aware, is based on the number of people in the community who are unemployed, plus in general terms 20 per cent. My problem is that nobody seems to know how many people are involved in these projects and I find it very difficult to work out how we manage to pay certain amounts of money. To give an example, in the Report of Committee of Review of Aboriginal Employment and Training Programs for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the figures given do not correspond with the estimates for those years supplied by the Department. I take as an example the Wiluna community. It was allocated $1.742m in 1983-87 under the CDEP scheme. The estimates show 347 eligible participants. Senator Crichton-Browne —What program was this? Senator MACKLIN —This is the community development employment projects scheme. Senator Crichton-Browne —What are they doing? Senator MACKLIN —I am looking at one example at Wiluna. Senator Crichton-Browne —But what is the project? Senator MACKLIN —It is the community development employment project at Wiluna. The scheme operates in a quite large number of communities throughout Australia. It is an excellent endeavour for the communities to develop themselves. They have done enormous work with the money. First of all, there is an estimate of 347 eligible participants. But, if one looks at the 1981 census, it shows only 221 people in total at Wiluna. The 1986 estimate of population varies between 300 and 350. So I imagine that that figure does not represent eligible participants, but all adults, their spouses and their children. One figure given by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the Review was 187 people; that is on page 41. The figure cited by the Review is 173. So there are at least three separate estimates of the number of participants at Wiluna. That worries me somewhat because somebody ought to know the correct figure. The people who do know must be the regional officers. Somebody has to know the number in order to do the calculations. What worries me is that, if the regional officers do know, and I cannot see how they would not know, why does the Department and everyone else seem to land on figures that seem to be plucked out of the air? When one thinks of the implications of this for financial outlays, it is very important because of the connection between unemployment benefits and the number of people eligible. That is probably able to be cleared up relatively simply, but the discrepancy in the figures worries me. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.39) —In response to Senator Macklin's question about the Wiluna figures, as Senator Macklin has pointed out, the program is very successful and is a means of replacing the payment of individual unemployment benefits to members of a community. The figures on which the Department of Aboriginal Affairs works are provided by the Department of Social Security. The figures at Wiluna change from week to week, depending on the eligibility of people moving in and out. They are adjusted quarterly in the payment of funds. The last figures that I have for Wiluna-there is no date on them-show that there were 72 married couples and eight single people with dependants. A number of dependants brings the total to 403. The payment is made on the basis of the number of adults plus a payment for dependants, as is the case with unemployment benefit. I assume that in that area the field officers and Aboriginal liaison officers do the work; they certainly did it when I was Minister for Social Security. They are the figures the Department uses-- Senator Macklin —The Department of Social Security? Senator GRIMES —No, they are the figures the Department of Aboriginal Affairs uses in administering the scheme. Its source is the Department of Social Security. Obviously, those figures would differ from census figures. That probably explains the problem faced by Senator Macklin. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.41) —I raise a matter that relates in a general sense to some of the Aboriginal communities which are found these days right across the length and breadth of Australia. I refer to what I perceive to be the lack of accurate and effective financial accounting of these groups and, particularly, to their lack of accountability. I draw the Senate's attention, for instance to the circumstances of the Oombulgurrie Association Inc. The Association was allocated grants by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for 1986-87 of $1,692,092. As I understand the arrangements, projects are allocated in conjunction with communities and DAA field staff work out programs and priorities. The Oombulgurrie Association is a community of between 250 and 300 people. It is located across the gulf from Wyndham in the far north of Western Australia. Included in the global amount I have referred to is an allocation of $400,000 for a landing barge. The object, presumably, of providing the landing barge was that the community which was purchasing the barge could transport stock, in the form of cattle, across the gulf to Wyndham to be subsequently sold. As I understand it, the barge has been purchased but not paid for because the community has suddenly found itself without any money. The barge has been repaired, renovated and re-equipped. The bill for that has also not been paid because there is no money. The original project was to cost a total of about $117,000. The amount has now run up to $225,000 with, in the short term, little prospect of creditors receiving the money owed to them which has already been outstanding for some months. Other creditors are also caught within the web of the community's financial difficulties, such as those who have provided fuel, cement and a whole range of items. To add to that, the community-like most communities-has a local store which has incurred debts in excess of $250,000. These debts are owed to small business people in Wyndham who offered credit to the community in good faith. These small business people have now been owed the very large amount of money I have referred to for many months. Very few small business people in the far north of Western Australia, with their enormous overheads, can afford to carry debts of that magnitude for months. I understand that there is no prospect of these people being repaid this year, although a scheme is presently being structured so that they may receive some payment in 1987. The community's bookkeeping appears to be so bad that the Department has seconded somebody from mid-level management to the community to try to sort out the community's affairs, which are in a very real mess. It seems, on the surface at least, that there is money, which apparently has been received and paid out by the community, for which there is absolutely no record or account. At the moment it seems to be anybody's guess whether that money has been misappropriated or simply that the books are in such a dire mess that it is difficult to draw a conclusion. It seems to me that much of the difficulty arises because of the employment of white advisers with a question- able level of competence and skill. There seems to be no proper accountability at all. At the end of the day advisers appear to be employed by the communities rather than by the DAA. It is unfair to expect these communities to have the competence or capacity to be discerning and make judgments as to the value and ability of their various advisers, but there ought to be some sort of accountability and some strings attached. Surely these communities ought to be expected to function, at least in part, on a commercial basis. I was interested to hear Senator Macklin talking about Wiluna. I had the distinction, if one could call it that, of being born in Wiluna. Some years ago the local store stopped credit for the Aboriginal community so they sacked the storekeeper. There ought to be a system whereby there is more accountability by all concerned. If bodies such as the Oombulgurrie Association are to receive taxpayers' money for the purpose of undertaking commercial or quasi-commercial activities both they and the Government have an absolute responsibility to adopt proper and precise commercial management and accounting practices. They have a responsibility, not only to themselves and to the taxpayers but also to their creditors, to ensure that their affairs are in such order that they are able to fulfil their commercial and legal responsibilities with respect to the debts they incur. As the Government chooses to use taxpayers' money, which is in the order of millions of dollars every year, in an effort, in very many cases, artificially to support community business activities of the type that are undertaken in Oombulgurrie and in many other places, it has a moral obligation to the Australian taxpayers to see that that money is put to the use for which it was intended. From the outset there ought to be some accountability and criteria for the projects that are undertaken. At the very best projects ought to have a long term viability and, at the very least, some long term benefit in terms of providing training, skills and capabilities to members of the Aboriginal community so that they can make a worthwhile contribution to their community. Until now that has not been the first priority of the arrangements that have been made, the allocations that have been given and the projects that have been set up. As long as any community, whether it be black or white, understands that there will be a continuing receipt of funds, irrespective of what happens to those funds and how they are handled, there will be mismanagement, incompetence and there will not be the care and responsibility one would normally expect from somebody who knows that if he mismanages his funds there will be no more funds and he will be accountable to the community and his creditors. If the Department proceeds in the way it has on a number of occasions-I highlight the case of Oombulgurrie for the moment because it is before me-in my view the Government is letting down the taxpayers, the Australian people and most of all the Aboriginal community. The Department should be more stringent, vigilant and careful in the allocation and protection of the limited resources available to the Australian community. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.50) —Governments of both persuasions in this country for some years have, in an effort to provide for self-determination amongst Aboriginal communities, allowed those communities to incorporate and employ their own community advisers and handle their own funds, both community development and employment project funds and operational grants. At Oombulgurrie towards the end of July this year it became obvious that things were not well. After initial investigations, on 10 August, a departmental officer was sent on a special assignment to Kununurra to deal with the Oombulgurrie problem. It was found that the community, as Senator Crichton-Browne said, lacked effective financial management and had incurred total debts, I am told, of $260,000 relating to storage, transport, barge and housing operations. The debts were incurred in the time of the previous community adviser, Mr Hart, who left suddenly on 2 September. Investigations have been conducted and, if necessary, the police will be involved. The Department has approached Mr Tony Howard, who has acted as a consultant to insolvent Aboriginal organisations in the past, to assist the community to organise its financial management. He will be responding after he considers the audit report due to be released by David Hallam and Co. about a week ago-I am not sure where it is now. The Department is at present having discussions with the Aboriginal Development Commission about the possibility of making a loan available to enable the community store to trade itself out of debt. The departmental officer will be located at Oombulgurrie until 31 January 1987 to assist in the implementation of any action decided on. I think it is wrong for Senator Crichton-Browne to suggest that this Government or other governments have guaranteed funds to communities like this regardless of their actions. In fact, the Government is looking at the moment at ways in which it can have a say in who will be employed as a community adviser and how it can provide training programs so that there is proper accounting and accountability, as Senator Crichton-Browne says there should be. The difficulty has always been in balancing attempts at self-determination against seeming overpatronising or paternalistic. Obviously, something has to be done and we are looking at that matter at the moment. Aboriginal communities, like white communities, sometimes go broke. Some stay solvent. Unfortunately, some people suffer in the circumstances. In this case we hope that prompt action by the Department with the assistance of the ADC will minimise the effects which are of obvious and justifiable concern to Senator Crichton-Browne. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.54) —I thank the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) for his explanation. I was not seeking in the particular to criticise this Government as though it is the beginning of all sins. I was making a general observation that it has been a fault of successive governments over the years. Their priority has been self-determination and not qualifications. They have not provided skills to those who are given self-determination-self-determination brings with it costs to taxpayers-or the capacity to be able to manage their affairs in the way that they want and the way which all Australians want. I do not know whether Senator Grimes has the answer but, as I understand it, there was some difficulty in restructuring the scheme of management with the community store and receiving the additional loan because the Aboriginal community was resisting the condition which was part of the arrangement that the management and control of the affairs of the store were to be handed over, in part, to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs officer who was seconded to the community. That to me highlights the very real problem. The store has incurred enormous debts. The Department will seek to repay those debts. That is a distinction we all know between the white business in Wyndham and the Aboriginal community in Oombulgurrie. In the case of Oombulgurrie the Department has offered to provide loans to allow the store to trade out of its difficulties, whereas the storekeeper in Wyndham who is owed the money can go broke tomorrow and nobody will offer him a loan to trade himself out of his debts. When there is that distinction there is a real onus on the part of the Government and the community to ensure that there is precise and proper accountability. It seems to me that that is one of the very real problems. Proper skills were not provided to these people. In the past there has been a temptation to rush headlong into ensuring that Aboriginal people are given self-determination without the necessary equipment that goes with it. I hope that in the future proper accounting procedures will be put in place and that the Aboriginal communities will learn and understand that the money is not never-ending. The very fact that the Oombulgurrie community is now resisting handing over responsibility for the community store to the Department is indicative, in my view, of the fact that its people have not yet understood that, at the end of the day, there has to be a balance between that which they spend and that which they receive. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.57) —I take on board the remarks of Senator Crichton-Browne and will ensure that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) receives them. Senator Vigor was not in the chamber when I spoke previously and I forgot to comment on some of his remarks. The development of Aboriginal broadcasting, both video and radio, has been patchy throughout Australia. It depends largely on local initiative. There is no firm program within the Department to develop it. It depends largely on local initiative and as local communities hear about what is happening in other communities they ask for and receive assistance. As Senator Vigor knows, there are some very good programs around. In the Torres Strait, I think from 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock every afternoon, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation hands over the radio channel to the Torres Strait broadcasting people. A person on any of the islands, Maer, Warraber or Sue as it is known, or Coconut, will suddenly hear all the radios come on at 3 o'clock as the Torres Strait broadcasting group-I think it is called the Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Media Association-starts broadcasting. It is a very effective community facility. I will seek further details as to what the Department intends to do in the future. At the moment it is my understanding that it is largely the result of local initiatives. The Department is discussing with the Aboriginal Development Corporation the matter of housing standards and the development of skills so that Aboriginal communities can provide their own housing. As Senator Vigor said, communities vary in how they develop. He mentioned a community near Ceduna. Some are quite advanced, others are not. We are trying to get away from the sins of the past that we have all seen when we tried to plonk pseudo suburban houses in the middle of nowhere and expected them to be suitable. Through the community development employment project which Senator Macklin talked about, the Department is trying to expand this program, giving as it does local responsibility, giving as it does funding tied to local community needs and local community size. The Department is appointing a CDEP officer in each State and in each local office where a CDEP exists. It is providing officers with the specific function of assisting Aboriginal communities. Through this they will be able to develop their own initiative, we hope. At various times in this chamber we have heard from Senator Crichton-Browne and others comments about the need to get the right balance between self-determination and accountability, between unlimited funding and funding associated with strict parameters, as is the case with the CDEP. That is a matter that has troubled successive governments. One can only hope that we can learn from experience and in fact improve the situation as we go along. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP E Department of Resources and Energy Proposed expenditure, $147,129,000. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.02) —I want to comment upon a number of matters arising out of discussions on the estimates for the Department of Resources and Energy. Let me start with the matter of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963. Actually, my questions on this matter started the day before the Estimates Committee E hearing, when we had before this chamber a statement by the Government on its response to the Royal Commission's report. In that response the Government referred to a phenomenon which it called `the black mist'. I then asked the Government to answer a series of questions, foreshadowing that I would ask them in the Estimates committee hearing. Those questions were, in precis: Was there any scientific proof that there was a black mist? If so, what was the nature of that black mist? Was it caused by natural disturbances, by dust or by other particulate matter in the atmosphere? Was it caused by radioactive materials? If it was caused by radioactive materials, was the radioactive intensity of such a nature that it would have adverse effects on people, either in terms of morbidity or death? The important point was that a statement had been made by the Government and the matter had been represented to the people as though the black mist actually existed. The purpose of that was to represent to the people that they could take it for granted that such a phenomenon had existed, the inference being that it had a radioactive background and that it therefore could have caused morbidity or death, and people could act upon that. The Government had taken an action which I applaud: It had arranged that civilians other than those who had been in Commonwealth employ could in future make an approach to the Commonwealth Office of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. I acknowledge that that is sensible. I also acknowledge that that body has a gentle onus of proof; that is, it does not have to have before it specific proof that a particular illness or death was in fact caused by radioactivity. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) was good enough to answer those questions and I want to respond to those answers. First of all, what the Minister quite clearly said was that the only proof the Government had was in terms of a scientific study. He said: All I can really do is summarise, essentially, the evidence as it is discussed in chapter 6.4 of the Royal Commission report. The key to it, I suppose, is the scientific study which was conducted by Roche and Vallis and which was issued by the UK Atomic Weapons Research Establishment. This concluded that there could have been a fallout cloud from the Totem 1 test on 15 October 1953 at Emu similar to that which is described in the anecdotal evidence. This is based on mathematical modelling of available data on the meteorology and debris cloud from the test. That study concluded, however, that the highest possible radiation doses that could be deduced from the models could not have resulted in short term adverse health effects on persons in the area concerned and that the possibility of long term carcinogenic effects was negligible compared with the probability of natural incidence. The only non-anecdotal evidence of the existence of the black mist is a report of a meeting 10 days after the Totem 1 test, which in paragraph 14 referred to the site of the cloud. I have that particular extract. I assume that it is a publicly available document if you want to look at it. Later, under further questioning, the Minister said: That is the only available scientific evidence to us. I want to make the point that the Minister has a duty not simply to refer to the black mist as though it were an established phenomenon but to say to the people of Australia that facts came out in the evidence to the effect that, if there were such a radioactive cloud, the only scientific evidence is that its nature and intensity was such that in fact it could not have done harm in terms of illness or death. That is fundamental to the understanding of this matter by people outside. The ordinary people in the community, whether Aboriginal or otherwise, are entitled to know whether there was such a phenomenon, whether they could have been affected by that phenomenon and, indeed, if they were to go to common law, what kind of compensation they could get. I stress-the Minister made this point and I acknowledge it-that people do not need hard evidence if they are going to the Office of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. The important point I want to establish, though, is this: A lot of anecdotal evidence has been created as a result of the British atomic tests. I think it is the duty of a government as well as an opposition to try to establish what is fact and what is simply anecdotal. I repeat: The only scientific evidence reinforced by the Minister is to the effect that, if there were that cloud, that cloud could not have in fact done any appreciable damage to the health of people. It is fair for that to be known so that people, in that knowledge, if they wish, may embark upon legal activity at their cost or, on appraising the situation, may decide not to do so. It is common knowledge that, in terms of morbidity and mortality, the incidence of neoplasms, the cancers of this world, will come to something like one in four or more people in this community in the ordinary course of living, from the ordinary effects of cosmic rays, of the rocks around us, of our own bones and of the foods we ingest. One in four people will develop neoplasms. So the existence of neoplasms in a person is not necessarily any proof at all that the existence of a phenomenon around that person caused it. It may be that these would occur during the ordinary journey through life. An authoritative publication of the World Health Organisation stated that there were 100 times more chances of contracting cancer from all other matters than from radioactivity. That is not to say that that study had in mind this sort of deliberate explosion, and large doses of radioactivity. I wanted to make it clear that the Government, in its response, when it referred to the black mist, was not referring to a phenomenon that it accepted as being a phenomenon caused by radioactivity, that it was not accepted by the Government that such a phenomenon was of an intensity that could have caused physical harm, and that it used the term in an anecdotal fashion and in no other way. I will seek in a moment to draw from the Minister such confirmation, which is derived from answers he has given. The fact is that during the period a number of epidemics of measles and german measles occurred in Aboriginal communities throughout the area and throughout Australia. There is considerable medical evidence that there was health damage and, indeed, death, because tragically, Aborigines are very susceptible to white people's diseases. Indeed, there is evidence that a loss of eyesight or a diminution of eyesight had been caused by such matters. I want, and have always wanted, every detail of the British atomic tests to be sought out, found and proven. If, as I have repeated many times in the Senate, there is evidence that any single person was affected by any of the radioactivity, that person should be compensated. Equally, it is absolutely important, now we have had a royal commission-sadly, a royal commission that indulged more in melodrama than in fact-for us to get to the facts, and let us use a common language when we discuss it in the Parliament and when the Government refers to it with the people. I ask the Minister: Will he take note of this evidence? Will he reinforce the fact that, as he said, the only scientific evidence is that evidence to which I have referred? Will he make it clear to the public that this is the only evidence and that, indeed, there are legal recourses open to people if they wish to act and if they have any further evidence? I remind the Committee of the health study which I authorised some years ago, which involved 15,600 Commonwealth employees who were inside that area. All health records, all dosimeters-that is, the radioactive badges they carried-and all death certificates were examined so that we could see what kind of an impact the radioactivity had made. I remind people-it is worth reminding them-that 10,000 people, from memory, were located, offered health checks and recourse to compensation, and 1,500 death certificates were examined. The epidemiological study concluded-and I believe the Royal Commission accepted-that there was no evidence that the radioactivity fallout from the British tests had damaged people's health. Having said that, I do not want to appear to be closing the door. I want to say, as the Minister has said, that the door of the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Commissioner is open, both to Commonwealth employees and, as I understand it, in future-and I welcome it-to other associated people. The onus upon people is much less heavy. Anybody who feels that he has been aggrieved should avail himself of this opportunity. I remind people also that there is the availability of common law. I point out that the number of people who have sought to avail themselves of common law has been very small-a handful of people over a period of years. Some of them, undoubtedly, waited for the results of the Royal Commission and also the Commonwealth's response to it. I point out that no one as yet has succeeded in common law. I urge that, in all of these matters, in fairness to the people of Australia, we tell the facts precisely, neither underestimating nor exaggerating them. I do not reflect on the Minister. I simply make a plea that when we use a phrase such as `black mist' we identify what we mean by it. I invite the Minister to respond. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.16) —I am happy to try to accommodate Senator Sir John Carrick again, as I tried to do during the Estimates committee hearings. I think I can say some useful things, but I am not sure whether I can go as far as he wants me to go. The debate about black mist, I suppose, has always been in two parts: First, whether there was any such phenomenon or whether, rather, it was a figment of imagination; and, secondly, if there was some phenomenon describable as black mist, whether it could have caused any illness or injury to person of a kind that ought properly to be compensated. As to the first question, there is now a reasonable body of evidence, both anecdotal and as a result of the scientific modelling exercise to which Senator Sir John Carrick referred, that would enable us to answer the question in the affirmative. It is likely that something did occur, that some kind of cloud emanated from the test, which is reasonably describable as black mist. As such, the use of the definite article by the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia in the reference to the black mist and so on is probably justified. As to the second question-whether any likely damage, injury or illness may have been caused by it-it is the case, to my knowledge, that the only evidence we have on this subject is the scientific modelling exercise to which Senator Sir John Carrick and I have referred. That study is not such as to encourage any confident belief that anyone is likely to have suffered as a result of it. Beyond that, I am not sure what I can say. On the one hand, I do not want irresponsibly to generate or reinforce expectations that there is a case to be made for compensation, if only someone can get a case before the court or an appropriate tribunal. Equally, however, on the other hand, I do not want irresponsibly-and I think it would be irresponsible to do so-to pre-empt or prejudice someone's chances of making a claim before a tribunal or at common law if he can persuade such a tribunal that the evidence already to hand justifies such a claim being made or if, as Senator Sir John Carrick said, he can somehow-God knows how, after the passage of time-dredge up new information and new evidence. This is the difficulty that one has had with this phenomenon. One small example of the larger problem of illness or injury arising from the atomic tests is that one does not want to generate expectations or beliefs that one has only to make a claim for it to be reasonably honoured. On the other hand, while dampening down, as I think we have tried to do, some of those expectations, I do not think it is fair to rule them out altogether. Personally, I am not sufficiently confident as to what the state of the evidence is on this matter to be so arrogant as to pre-empt that sort of judgment. I think that is what Senator Sir John Carrick wanted me to say. I cannot go any further than that. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.20) —I have followed this debate with considerable interest. I note what the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, has said. I think all senators from this side would agree that he has been most helpful and has taken a completely responsible attitude to this very difficult subject. I have also noticed the remarks of Senator Sir John Carrick, who was the Minister for National Development and Energy in the Fraser Government. Of course, having had that responsibility he too has followed through this debate. I think it is fair to say that there are few more expert than Senator Sir John Carrick on the matter. It was interesting to see the answers given by the Minister to questions asked by Senator Sir John Carrick during the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee E relating to resources and energy and the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia concerning the Maralinga tests. At this stage I should like to ask some questions which arise from the Committee hearing. The Minister may not be in a position to answer the questions immediately but, in continuing to endeavour to clear up the matter by making information available to the people interested, in this chamber or elsewhere, he may be able to table the answers in the Senate at some future time. I note that the Minister conceded that the Government has virtually no scientific evidence of the existence of the black mist, as has been indicated a few months ago. He said that apart from anecdotal evidence the only evidence of the mist is a report 10 days after the Totem 1 experiment which referred to the size of the cloud. Senator Sir John Carrick mentioned this. It seemed during the exchange of questions and answers that the Minister was careful, for good reason, to ensure that it was made clear that the Government was picking up the language of the Royal Commission. He said: `We make no judgment about whether claims', that is, relating to the black mist, `have any validity'. In spite of this, the Government announced that it would pay some half a million dollars in compensation to Aboriginal communities with traditional interest in the Maralinga area. This was before any scientific research had been undertaken, as I understand it, to establish what effect the testing had upon the Maralinga area. I note that the first instalment in a series of compensation payments was to be used to assist in the provision of roads, permanent water supply and basic communications. Senator Gareth Evans —Excuse me, Senator. You did give us notice of the series of questions, to which I have written answers now available. I think we can possibly pre-empt this process by my simply tabling the answers. Senator KILGARIFF —Then I shall not go through the questions which some time ago I sent to the Minister. Senator Gareth Evans —I do not want to cut Senator Kilgariff off in full flow but it may short-circuit the process if I table the answers. Senator KILGARIFF —I shall briefly finish my comments. I was talking about water supplies, basic communications and such which are being provided for the Aboriginal people. That is commendable because those sorts of facilities are needed throughout the outback. I would be interested to know whether this compensation is to be taken as some sort of admission by the Government that the tests had a detrimental effect of some nature upon the Aboriginals in the area, as mentioned by Senator Sir John Carrick. I do not wish to take up any further time unnecessarily. The Minister has indicated that he has answers to my questions available so I hand over to him. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.24) —Rather than responding orally it might shorten proceedings and be more appropriate if I incorporated the three pages of questions and answers in Hansard so that they are on the record. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY SENATOR KILGARIFF FROM ESTIMATES COMMITTEE E HEARINGS The Senator asked 12 questions against the preface ``In relation to the $500 million proposed to be paid to the Aboriginal communities around the Maralinga area'' The amount in question was $500,000 not $500 million and is to be paid by way of relocation compensation to be provided to communities with a traditional interest in land within the former Maralinga prohibited area. 1. What amount or amounts, if any, have yet been paid, and to whom? Nil. 2. For what purposes have the individual payments been made? No payments have yet been made. In response to Recommendation 7 of the Royal Commission the amount is provided for the provision of roads, a permanent water supply and basic communications among other facilities. The details of the programs are being worked out with the Maralinga Peoples. 3. Have any of the payments been made in respect of specific and identifiable damages sustained by the recipients as a result of the tests, and if so what are the details? The amount of $500,000 was not provided in respect of specific and identifiable damages-injuries-arising as a result of the tests. The Government in response to Recommendation 1 of the Royal Commission has extended the benefits of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 to include Aborigines and other civilians such as graziers who may have been exposed to the Black Mist. 4. What process is being used to determine to whom payments are to be made? The extension of the compensation benefits will be managed under administrative arrangements. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation will address claims made by Aboriginal people claiming to have been injured by the tests. 5. Are further payments anticipated, and if so what would be the estimated total value of compensation payments? No claims for compensation for injury have yet been made and it is therefore impracticable to estimate the extent of such payments which may be made in the future. 6. Regarding future payments, what will they be paid to compensate for? Future payments to Aboriginal peoples for relocation compensation will be considered by Government in the light of budgetary considerations. 7, 8, 9. Are these payments quite separate and unconnected with any further payments which the Federal Government might deem to be necessary as a result of the findings of the Technical Assessment Group, or will they be deducted from any such compensation which might be deemed appropriate? Will the Federal Government be reviewing the entitlement of the communities involved to compensation, in the light of the analysis of the Maralinga area, once it is completed by the Technical Assessment Group. Why was it decided to pay the compensation, prior to the completion of the TAG's review of the impact of the tests, particularly in view of the paucity of scientific evidence relating to the effects of the tests on the inhabitants of the area. The Technical Assessment Group is to identify options for the clean-up of the test sites. This issue is being treated separately from the issues of relocation compensation and compensation for injury. 10, 11 Are there any claims from Aboriginal people presently before the Government for compensation in relation to the Maralinga tests. If so, who are the claimants, and in respect of what damage are they claiming? No. One Aborigine, however, lodged a writ for damages for injury as a result of the tests in the South Australian Supreme Court in 1983. 12. What is the procedure proposed for dealing with these claims (have they been lodged through formal legal proceedings or some other mechanism)? As indicated above claims should be lodged with the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.25) —During the Estimates committee hearings I asked a series of questions regarding the three main factors in terms ensuring that energy is available to Australia in the decades ahead; that is, conservation, conversion and exploration. The evidence from the committee transcripts, other published documents and industry shows a very disappointing picture. There is little or no evidence that there is any attempt at conservation or conversion in Australia and there is very real evidence that exploration in Australia is falling away badly. My comments are against the background that it is generally accepted that two or three important developments will occur. Bass Strait production of oil will start to decline this year and in five to seven years time that oil will be virtually used up. Bass Strait production has been providing something like 400,000 barrels a day, give or take a few, of the 440,000 barrels a day roughly, that Australia has been producing indigenously. This production has been supplemented by imports of heavier crude. Unless we can find substitutes for Bass Strait oil Australia will be in a dire situation. Today and for the last four years the Government has been facing a growing trade deficit which has bedevilled the whole of our economy. It is incredible that the Government should be running the grave risk, the peril, that we will be enhancing that deficit in the decades ahead through the necessity of buying more and more oil from overseas. On old figures, every 10 per cent drop in our oil self-sufficiency in Australia requires an extra $1 billion in oil imports. Those figures will increase as the years go by. On top of that, it is accepted generally that towards the middle years of the next decade world production of oil will be such that the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries will command 75 per cent of the non-Iron Curtain world supply source of oil. From the experience of the 1970s we should have learnt the great danger to the free world of a monopoly on oil. I express the gravest personal view that we are utterly wrong in exporting oil from Australia at present. I understand-the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) can confirm these figures-that the amount we have now exported would be roughly equivalent to seven or eight months of Australian consumption. In my judgment that volume of oil left in the ground to be used in five to seven years time could be absolutely vital to our economic situation. It could be vital in that we would not be hostage to the world monopolies and we would not have such pressure upon our balance of trade. I refer to reports on the way in which other countries are conserving oil. The Department of Resources and Energy projected some years ago that Australia's consumption of oil would increase by a fraction less than one per cent a year. I understand that in fact the figure is something under 2 per cent. Countries such as the United States of America and Japan have shown a great capacity to conserve oil. In comparison, I see no evidence of an attempt to conserve oil in Australia. In my judgment that is one of the most serious dangers to Australia. When this Government came to office there was a plan very much in force to convert each year some thousands of government vehicles to LPG so that there would be more use of our indigenous LPG, a lesser drain upon oil needed for fractionation for petrol purposes and in the longer term the development of an industry in Australia which could use Australia's LPG and natural gas rather than depend upon the light fractions-the petrols. That program has been run right down and is virtually non-existent. How a government could do that defies imagination. We have had the clearest of proof that in the taxi industry LPG has proved highly efficient and highly economical. I think the figures were that 90 per cent of Canberra taxis were using LPG, in Melbourne 80 per cent were and in the other major cities the figures were of that order. A natural thing for all commercial vehicles that have high milages would be to have LPG conversion. I see absolutely no sign that the Government believes that there is any sense of urgency or that it has any responsibility in promoting conversion from petrol. I see nothing in the energy saving figures that have been given to us that suggests that we are attempting to conserve. That does not just apply to oil. It is not just the question of saving a precious, non-renewable resource. Fundamentally we are in the grip of an economic crisis where we are being costed out of world markets because of our high costs. Anything that a government can do to get the costs down is of profound importance. If we can save on energy, we can save fundamentally. The International Energy Agency has repeatedly reported that it would be possible for a country with our kind of living standards to save up to 30 per cent of its consumable energy without lowering living standards. The effect of that on costs would be enormous. We are only toying with energy conservation in terms of electric power consumption. There is some sign that in government buildings something is happening, but there is no intensity or fire in the belly of this Government to do this. Yet the best way to save the huge capital investment in new power stations and, therefore, the huge borrowings overseas that build up our foreign debt, is to use our electricity more conservatively. I see no such drive in the Government wherever I turn. When I turn to exploration I see the very reverse of this situation. When the Whitlam Government went out of office in 1975 there were 22 oil rigs in Australia, of which only one was working, and only 25 wells were being developed. Over the period of the Fraser Government this was built up to 200 or more and, on the momentum of that buildup, was carried to a peak by this Government, but it is now declining. The Government has deliberately gone out of its way to impede exploration in Australia. It has put penalties upon exploration. The new situation in which, in certain areas, leases are granted by front end bonuses is a disincentive. The industry is issuing a grave warning to the Government; it is saying to the Government that the rate of exploration is far from enough for us to keep up our self-sufficiency. The Government admits that, on the present predictions from the Bureau of Mineral Resources and on its own predictions, by some five years time, and no more than that, self- sufficiency in Australia will have fallen from something like 78 per cent to the 40 per cent mark-45 or 47 per cent. Senator Gareth Evans —That is on the assumption of no new discoveries. Be fair. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —With great respect, it is not on the assumption of no new discoveries but on the assumption of no new major discoveries. That is a very significant difference. I suggest that the Minister go back to his facts on this because the question that I have asked BMR and the Department of Resources and Energy repeatedly is: What is the projection for Australian self-sufficiency on the known facts? The know facts are that our self-sufficiency will be somewhere in the order of 40 per cent in five or six years time without any major discoveries. To get an understanding of this, for the free world to keep up its supply of oil, every 15 years it has to find another oil field of the magnitude of either the North Sea or Alaska. Apart from the development of Mexico's oil fields, there has been no such discovery and, indeed, the North Sea is now predicted to be on a path of decline. For us to stay self-sufficient we have to find major fields. There is no doubt in the world that we could better develop the fields we have now, but the fact is that on this prediction we will have fallen from what amounts to total self- sufficiency in the lighter fractions, say 78 per cent, to some 30 per cent. If that shortfall had to be import replaced, it would cost at least $3 billion a year which this country is quite incapable of financing in the future. If we have learnt one thing from the world recession of the 1970s it is that the world had to put more and more money out into buying oil and had less and less money for trade. As trade shrank, so recession grew throughout the world. If we have to put more and more money out in terms of buying oil, we will have less and less money for trade and bigger and bigger deficits. I see nothing in the publications of the Department or in the Government's statements which suggests a sense of urgency and that the Government really recognises the impending crisis in terms of energy both in the world and in Australia. I see nothing in the performance that is scheduled that shows that. As I understand it, the exploration people are pointing out that exploration will fall by about half in the future. The Minister can perhaps comment on this projection. I see nothing that the Government is doing to provide further incentives. It is not just a question of oil and energy. Australia has all the basic mineral resources and a huge potential for energy. Put together, we ought to be one of the great manufacturing countries of this world. We are not because we have no efficiency in the system and we have not given the people a perceived goal. I have to say, sadly, that all the evidence that came out at the Estimates Committee points to the fact that the Government has no perceived urgency in terms of conservation, conversion or exploration. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.39) —The issues raised by Senator Sir John Carrick are obviously so broad-ranging that they could be productively debated for a number of hours. Senator Sir John Carrick —Weeks. Senator GARETH EVANS —Weeks, indeed. I hope that he will forgive me if, in the particular context of this debate, I keep my reply very brief. But let me say that, of course, I acknowledge that Australia has a problem in its declining liquid fuels self-sufficiency. How one measures the extent of that problem depends on all sorts of evanescent assumptions about both the supply and the demand side of the equation, but perhaps the most useful formula to keep in our heads is the one that was not contested as the best general summary of the situation at the recent Energy 2000 Conference, and that is the Bureau of Mineral Resources estimate that there is a 50 per cent probability of Australia being 50 per cent self-sufficient by the turn of the century. Senator Sir John Carrick —That is a drop of 30 per cent. Senator GARETH EVANS —Of course it is, and I readily acknowledge that. Indeed, it may be more than 30 per cent if we take it as being over 90 per cent at the moment. Of course, therein lies a problem. It is not a problem that can be met by throwing resources at domestic exploration in the hope, perhaps again likely to be unrealised, that major new discoveries will be made. It is a problem that has to be addressed, as Senator Sir John Carrick says, by conservation strategies and conversion strategies. I am particularly interested in the conversion option, with particular focus on liquefied petroleum gas and compressed natural gas for vehicle fleet usage, and also some of the other alternative fuel strategies involving gas-in particular, the direct conversion of gas to gasoline, not through the New Zealand method but by more direct processes of the kind that we are spending a lot of money on with this year's National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council grants, as in the past few years, to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and some commercial outlets as well. Conservation, conversion and exploration are the crucial triad. I acknowledge that. Exploration is down to unhappily low levels at the moment, not as a result, of course, as the industry itself acknowledges, of Government policies or any lack of Government attention to this problem but, of course, as a consequence of the catastrophic decline in world prices which has seen exactly equivalent declines in exploration activity around the rest of the world. That is not to say that we can afford to be complacent about our present taxation and regulatory regimes. The Government has made a number of adjustments to those regimes through the course of this year to accommodate the new reality as we have found it. But we have not even sat on our hands there. We have embarked upon, and I have announced recently, a major re-examination of our taxation policy as it affects the oil industry. We will be doing that with a great deal of constructive assistance from the industry-most recently, in the last few days, in the form of quite substantial submissions made to me in the aftermath of the Energy 2000 conference. To say that the Government is not addressing these issues with any sense of urgency or commitment is, I think, a trifle unfair. While I have been Minister for Resources and Energy-I know that Senator Walsh had similar preoccupations before me-I have set in train a full scale evaluation of our whole national energy strategy between now and the year 2000, the centrepiece of which is an acknowledgment that the decline in liquid fuel self-sufficiency is the biggest problem that we as a nation face. That is to be more than just a cosmetic exercise in generating paper for its own sake. It is necessarily a prolonged exercise. But it has been a very constructive one. It has taken the form of full length discussion documents put out in the early part of this year addressing all the issues to which Senator Sir John Carrick has referred, a major conference in recent months and, now, a further process of evaluation and consultation leading up to, I hope, maybe a little later than I previously thought because I want to build a number of other elements into it, a full scale policy statement canvassing and dealing with all of these issues some time during next year. So we are conscious and I am conscious of these issues. They are not simple ones. It is important that we maintain consciousness of them. It is particularly important that we do not, in the lower fuel price regime we happen to be temporarily enjoying at the moment, lose our will to recognise the necessity for conservation. It is particularly important that the Commonwealth Government show the way. I get profoundly irritated every time I drive around Canberra at night past Commonwealth buildings and see whole buildings of 10 to 15 floors lit up. This is a simple demonstration of the profligacy of our energy policies in years gone by when there was cheap fuel. After all these years, despite energy management programs which have overlapped successive governments, we still do not seem to be solving even some of these comparatively simple problems of energy management. So there is a lot to be done. It is important that we maintain our consciousness of it. I assure Senator Sir John Carrick that his words, unfair as I thought they were in their full rigor, nonetheless have not fallen on entirely deaf ears. Progress reported. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.45) —Mr Deputy President, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Senate a matter which I believe gives very grave cause for concern for the future of thousands of young Australians and I particularly refer to the young people of the Northern Territory. My concern for these young people arises out of the attitude which has been adopted by the Federal Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, and certain officers of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in relation to the Darwin University College. Senator Ryan's responses to questions put yesterday by Senator Robertson and Senator Teague have done nothing to allay those concerns. In fact, if anything, the inaccuracies in Senator Ryan's responses and her clear lack of knowledge of the tertiary educational requirements of the Northern Territory raise some pretty serious questions about her grasp of what I thought were fundamental facts. I will come later on to the inaccuracies in the information that Senator Ryan perpetrated in the Senate yesterday. First, I would like to give a brief outline of some of the other matters relating to the history of the University College in Darwin and the way that it has been dealt with by the Federal Government. The first point which I believe should be made is that there is a desperate need for access to university education within the Northern Territory. The lack of access to such a facility has until now meant that the number of Territory students who go on to university study after year 12 is only one-third of the national average. That is far from a satisfactory situation, particularly in view of the rising numbers of year 12 students in Territory schools. Last year there were some 690 students; this year there are more than 900. Of course, if this increase happens year by year we will be up to 2,000 in a very short while. Those students who wish to go on to university have been forced to go interstate, usually to Queensland, to study. But increasingly it has become difficult for Territory students to obtain places because of the imposition of quotas in universities in southern capitals and the fact that some institutions are now giving preference to students from their own States, which is quite realistic. This brain drain is a reality in the Northern Territory and the majority of students who study interstate rarely return to the Territory to work. The Territory is rapidly losing the cream of its youth and this situation has to be arrested. The logical answer to this problem would seem to be obvious: The Territory should become self-sufficient in the provision of tertiary education and begin now to lay the foundations on which the future of tertiary education in the Northern Territory will be built. I would like to consider for a moment what the Federal Government's response to this situation has been. The only offer the Federal Government has made is to fund a limited number of university subjects for up to 20 students within the Darwin Institute of Technology next year. There would be funding for another 20 students in each of the following two years, rising to a total of about 60 students over three years in a limited number of subjects. Already the University College has attracted 254 applications for next year alone, but the Federal Government has set down the ultimatum-20 places next year or nothing. In order to enforce this ultimatum, the Federal Government and the Minister have found a very vindictive method of penalising, not so much the Northern Territory Government, but the young people of the Northern Territory. What the Minister has decided to say is that if the Northern Territory Government will not take these mere 20 places, the students at the new Territory university will be discriminated against in that they will not be regarded as entitled to receive Abstudy or Austudy. I should point out here that the University College in Darwin is a college of the University of Queensland. Its courses are accredited courses of the University of Queensland and its academic standing is not questioned. So, a student who travels from the Northern Territory to Queensland and does a course, exactly the same as that offered in Darwin, will be eligible to receive Austudy or Abstudy, as the case may be. The student who does exactly the same course or study in Darwin will not be permitted to receive either Abstudy or Austudy; a rather discriminating situation, to say the least. This is quite an incredible situation, in view of the number of times honourable senators have heard the Minister stand in this chamber and piously tell the Senate how much she, her Department and the Labor Government are doing for Aboriginal people. The Minister would be well aware that the financial circumstances of many Aboriginal families are such that they cannot afford to send their students to university outside the Northern Territory. There is a growing need, and the tide is beginning to turn. Even those who qualify for Abstudy find the cost of accommodation and other living expenses so prohibitive that it is just not economically possible for the children of these families to further their education. I am speaking not only of Aboriginal families; this applies to many of the workers, the battlers, in the Northern Territory. Yet the Minister for Education is not interested in providing more than a miserable 20 places for Territory students, many of whom would be Aboriginal students, as I have said before, to improve their education and their prospects. We have really a ludicrous situation where Territory students who wish to continue on to tertiary study, and to do it at home close to family and friends, are being penalised. They are being forced to go out of the Territory at great cost to themselves, their parents, the Federal Government, which has to pay them three air fares home per year, and, ultimately, the Northern Territory. I would have to agree with the Northern Territory Minister for Education, the Hon. Daryl Manzie, who described this attitude in the Legislative Assembly earlier this week as `sheer bullheaded bloody mindedness'. I turn to the inaccuracies in Senator Ryan's answers yesterday here in the Senate, and they are indeed very worrying. The first and most incredible is the Minister's statement yesterday in relation to the Darwin Institute of Technology. In arguing that it should carry the 20 students in the first year of the University College, the Minister was telling the Senate that it was logical that the facilities of the Darwin Institute of Technology should be used; that they were not overly taxed already, that there is plenty of room for more students. The Minister, Senator Ryan, said: The Darwin Institute of Technology is a relatively new, relatively small, higher education institution. It is going quite well and the Federal Government wishes to support its development. It currently has in the vicinity of 300 students. That was Senator Ryan speaking. So the Federal Education Minister thinks that the Institute has 300 students. In fact it has 8,500 students-I repeat-8,500, not 300. One could perhaps excuse the Minister for making an approximation which is a little less than accurate. But for the Federal Minister for Education to be so out of touch with reality as to think that an institution of over 8,000 students has only 300 students raises serious doubts regarding her grasp of what is going on in tertiary education institutions around Australia; or perhaps she knows what is going on elsewhere but just has not bothered to inform herself of what the situation is in the Northern Territory. Perhaps there is another thing, too, that she is getting very bad advice from somewhere and this may become a little obvious in a moment or two. That may in fact be the true position as there are certainly very big gaps between the real situation and that which was presented by the Minister in this place yesterday. Let us consider some of her other responses in the Senate yesterday. The Minister said that she would not allow higher education policy to be determined unilaterally by State or Territory regimes. Yet a resolution passed at the fifty-second meeting of the Australian Education Council last year provided that the Commonwealth should acknowledge that the wishes of each State with respect to the development of its tertiary education system should be treated as the most important source of advice about the needs at the State level in the triennial planning process. The Northern Territory Government has not even been asked for its advice about its needs. A second part of the Education Council resolution requires the Commonwealth and States to negotiate to accommodate each other's views. The Northern Territory Government has tried to negotiate but has been greeted with nothing but the ultimatum to which I have referred. When Northern Territory educational representatives met with Mr Hugh Hudson of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in Canberra recently to discuss the University College, the Northern Territory officials were subjected to a tirade of abuse from this supposedly senior public servant. They were accused of being wankers-nice language from a senior education person. They were told that they were snobbish and generally treated in a manner which suggests to me that the particular public servant, the CTEC official, Mr Hudson, is not fit to hold the office which he does. I suggest that the Minister might look at these complaints that are being made and at her inaccuracies and the information that she has been fed. Perhaps Mr Hudson could be moved sideways in the interests of education in Australia, and particularly in the Northern Territory. Senator Ryan also referred yesterday to the University College as a gross misuse and wastage of public funds, yet she fails to realise that it costs far more to send students out of the Territory to be educated than it will to educate them in the Territory. The other errors which she made during her speech are too many to enumerate in the time which I have available here today, but I will certainly take them up with the Minister and I will be interested to see whether, in view of misleading information which she has put before the Senate, the Minister is prepared to learn a bit more about what is really happening in the Northern Territory before she takes any further action to discriminate against the Northern Territory students. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(12.57) —In this debate on matters of public interest I would like to identify two main issues which will determine the future course of Australian history. These are taxation policy and industrial relations policy. Liberals have no policy on taxation. I was interested in an article yesterday on page 3 of the Australian Financial Review by Gregory Hywood and Richard Hubbard, headed `Worried Howard brings forward date for policies'. That article said: In a move to bolster his leadership and offset criticism about a lack of direction, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr Howard, is bringing forward the announcement of a range of policies to February. The article detailed a number of policies and included a general discussion on taxation policy. So that while the Liberals have no taxation policy, they do have a policy on industrial relations and it is this policy of the Opposition that I would like to speak about. Under this Labor Government we have seen the success of working with the trade union movement as we face what has become a world economic crisis. This crisis has forced this Government to contemplate structural changes in the economy which have never been undertaken before. The Government contemplates these changes, however, with the support of the trade union movement, to ensure that not only do we aim for economic efficiency, but also we aim for human happiness. Our approach has been one of consensus and in taking this path we follow the path of most successful economies in western Europe, for example, West Germany, Scandinavia, Austria, to mention just a few. These countries have accepted the need for consensus and industrial democracy, tripartism and greater equality of income and opportunity. In following this model, they are the countries which provide the greatest economic stability and prosperity in terms of economic growth, low inflation, industrial harmony and social justice. West Germany, for example, has 50 per cent of corporate board positions held by workers from the shop floor in major companies and has had that for 20 to 30 years. In Australia there has been acknowledgement of the role of trade unions for many years in the past by Liberal governments, so it is very important to understand how this new confrontationist industrial relations policy of the Liberals was formulated and what shift in philosophy it represents. Firstly, it should be said that this new policy which, according to the major architect, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Neil Brown, took eight months to prepare, has been lambasted by many critics and called legally unworkable. One report by Sydney barrister J. D. Shaw, for example, calls the policies `a curious mishmash of motherhood declarations, restatement of the status quo and a few daring innovations which reflect the views of the free marketeers in the Liberal Party'. Amongst all of this are many proposals which, if implemented, would raise profound legal difficulties. The policy simply does not explain how the more controversial reforms are to be put into practice. The silence invites scepticism. In particular Mr Shaw is sceptical about the new-found concern by the Liberal Party for occupational health and safety. It is under this Labor Government and the operation of the accord that we have seen occupational health become a meaningful concern. We pledged action and we now have in place the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. So for the Liberals to pretend concern over this issue is simply gratuitous after their years of neglect in this area. Similarly, there are calls for the Arbitration Commission to heed the capacity of industry to pay when making its decisions. This is all so unnecessary as the Commission has always done this. It is now the infamous opting out provision for businesses with under 50 employees that requires greater attention. That is a suggestion that small business can opt out of the system and Mr Shaw points out that there are serious legal difficulties with this opting out provision. In particular, how can provision be made in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to enforce agreements between individual workers and individual employers? There are, however, more ethical objections about this provision which I will detail later. I would first like briefly to touch on the other controversial aspects of the Liberal policy. The policy makes reference to the desirability of the use of common law. As Mr Shaw points out, the use of common law has always been available, but he goes on to say: `Australian employers generally do not sue trade unions for a good reason: Doing so makes an industrial problem worse'. Similarly, the Liberal policy now says that there should be no preference to unionists in awards. As Mr Shaw points out, preference to unionists has been part and parcel of our industrial history for many decades. It is not something dreamed up by this Labor Government. It is something that has been received and supported by both conservative and Labor governments. This acceptance of the need for worker organisation has very good reasons and a sound basis for it; that is, unless there is broad agreement between the representatives of business and the representatives of workers, there may well be industrial chaos which will hurt everyone. It is the shift from this position that is the most interesting aspect of the Liberals' new industrial relations policy. Regardless of the new policy's legal unworkability and its use of meaningless cliches, it does represent a significant shift in the ideology of the Liberal Party; that is, a shift to return to full scale confrontation which is aimed at destroying the trade union movement. The return to confrontation was apparent soon after John Howard toppled Andrew Peacock as Leader of the Opposition. In his first statement as Leader of the Opposition, John Howard said: Deregulation of the labour market remains probably the greatest economic challenge that we have over the next five or 10 years. Here is a man who presided over the most politically divisive and economically disastrous period in recent Australian history telling us how he would encourage further divisive and confrontationist tactics. We should not forget that John Howard had already encouraged the anti-union cause, during the Fraser regime. He did this by allowing the development of tax loopholes which specifically encouraged the development of contract labour, rather than wage and salary employment. Between 1972 and 1984 contract labour grew at the rate of 51.7 per cent, compared to a growth of only 13.6 per cent in wage and salary employment. The growth of contract labour during this time is almost directly attributable to the undermining of the tax system which allows the self-employed to evade and avoid tax in massive amounts. The most important matter now, the most sinister plank in the industrial relations program of the Liberal Party, is the proposal I have mentioned, the opting out provisions for those companies with 50 or fewer employees. This provision has the potential to affect some 2.1 million people in Australia who work in industries of 50 or fewer employees. This is one-third of the work force. This opting out provision will mean that the 2.1 million people affected by it will have to bear the brunt of fewer benefits, variable conditions of work and individual bargaining without the support of trade unions. In fact, it will signal the return of the industrial lawlessness of the early Victorian era when there was no concern for the health and welfare of the employee. The heroes of the Opposition leadership already have cleared the way for this to happen. I would also like to refer to people like Hugh Morgan and Charles Copeman, members along with Mr Howard of the H. R. Nicholls Society, because Copeman and Morgan pride themselves on their ruthless and brutal behaviour, the most recent example of which was the sacking of 400 employees at Peko's Besco factory in my own State of New South Wales. Those 400 employees were given half an hour's notice. Unfortunately, the view of the world of these people in the New Right is so primitive and cruel that they must be seen as the modern New Guard or a pro-fascist or neo-fascist development or revival in this country and to that extent it is most serious. The fact that this vision is shared by the current leadership of the Opposition is a serious cause for alarm. Perhaps it is of more concern that it is all done in the name of freedom. What freedom is there for employees being unrepresented by trade unions when their bosses or employers are represented by the likes of the Australian Federation of Employers and the National Farmers Federation? Where will the workers in small industry get their information and back-up from? Why have work practices which are essentially hard-won conditions, like health and safety regulations, and which have saved many lives, become something to be derided by the Opposition and the New Right? This issue was brought home in a recent letter in the Australian Financial Review. The letter was from Warwick Neilly, a research officer of the Building Workers Industrial Union, in response to an article by David Clark on the restrictive work practices in the building industry. Mr Neilly pointed out that the Australian building workers, vigilance over health and safety issues had saved many lives. It was this vigilance and the ensuing work practices that so upset David Clark, who urged the adoption of the American system which was much more profitable for the employers but as a consequence had an industry death rate four times that of Australia. As Mr Bob Hawke, the Prime Minister, pointed out in last Monday's Four Corners program on the New Right, the problem with the New Right is that it is unable to see human beings as anything other than items on a corporate balance sheet. What the New Right and its fellow travellers in the Liberal Party want is not really deregulation at all. What they seek is simply re-regulation in their favour; that is, they seek a return to the feudal situation where management's right to rule is unquestioned and where management rules over a weak, non-unionised work force. These forces of the New Right have been able to fund sufficient think tanks to argue that there is academic support for their arguments. We must be very wary of any such arguments. For example, a report prepared for the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Westpac Banking Corporation by Professor Blandy and Ms Judith Sloan suggests the abolition of compulsory arbitration, allowing direct employer-employee deals, et cetera. Yet these two academics have a history of supporting confrontationist policies of the New Right. Ms Sloan is best known for her suggestion that the natural level of unemployment in Australia is over 8 per cent, saying, in effect, that those people now unemployed should be thrown on the scrapheap. For every report which urges rule of the market, there are several arguing against that rule and for a model which relies on sanity and humanity. For example, at the same time as the report of Blandy and Sloan was released, so too was another report of the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia saying that deregulation will lead only to an increase in industrial disputes. Many sensible capitalists and entrepreneurs are quite clear about the road they wish to follow because, while they may not support everything the union movement does, they do see an important role for the trade union movement. For example, only last week the Confederation of Australian Industry accused the New Right and the Opposition of escapist fantasy in proposing the abolition of a centralised industrial relations system. The CAI says that the abandonment of the current industrial relations system: . . . poses a major threat to the future of this economy. These critics of our centralised industrial system, virtually none of whom have been involved in industrial relations, threaten employers with changes that will create conditions far worse than those that have already existed. That is the view of the CAI, and I think it is a very sobering view for any person interested in industrial relations. It is a reminder that unfortunately the Liberal Party has lurched to the extreme Right in adopting policies that are far too extreme for the traditions of industrial relations in Australia. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.12) —I have listened with care to Senator Childs. I can only conclude that, as he was a union official for over 20 years before he came into the Senate, he must share some of the responsibility for the problems facing this country. The lights will not burn late in Liberal Party offices tonight and his criticism only gives us reason to believe that the policy which has been put forward by our side is well directed and will benefit Australia. I wish to say a few things about problems facing the Christian community in Lebanon at the present time. Lebanon's Christians have been fighting a war of survival for the past 11 years. Over 500,000 of them are, in fact if not in name, refugees in their own country because of the war and tens of thousands of them have been killed or injured since the fighting began in 1975. Recent attention drawn to Syrian involvement in world terrorism should logically lead to greater attention being paid to the plight of the Lebanese people, Christians and moderate Muslims, whose country has been used as a pawn by Syria and by the Soviet Union in their attempts to assert their hegemony in the region. Syria entered the country illegally in January 1976 and has never completely quit Lebanon since then. The sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom and the United States and, to a lesser extent, those reluctantly imposed by the European Community countries, focus attention on claims by Lebanon over the past 11 years that Syria has been perpetrating acts of terror in Lebanon either directly or vicariously through its allies in the various Muslim and Druze factions. All indications are that Syria, Iran and the Soviet Union, which are the major non-Lebanese parties involved in the conflict, having failed militarily and politically to break the spirit of the Lebanese Christians, are doing all they can to destroy Lebanon's economy. The state of the Lebanese economy may be gauged from the following facts: In 1975 there were 2.37 Lebanese pounds to the United States dollar. At present the figure is roughly 50 Lebanese pounds to the United States dollar. People's wages have not risen much in the intervening years and the average wage is around 2,000 Lebanese pounds per month. What two years ago would have been paid for 10 kilograms of tomatoes can today buy only 22 grams in Lebanon. What would have been paid two years ago for 660 grams of coffee in Lebanon will today buy only three grams of coffee. A dress that in 1984 would have cost 200 Lebanese pounds today costs more than 5,000 Lebanese pounds. What would have been paid two years ago for 25 grams of meat in Lebanon will today buy only five grams. And what two years ago would have bought four apples, today buys just 100 grams-only part of one apple. The economic situation affects all Lebanese people, the well-off and the poor. It affects Muslims, Christians and Druze. They are all united in the misery that besets their tiny country which in 1974 attracted over three million tourists, of whom over 450,000 were from Europe and the Americas. Today Lebanon receives virtually no tourists. The Lebanese Christians who wish to remain in their homeland face extermination. They fear the consequences of a Syrian takeover of their country. They fear the prospect of reverting to the status of what are called Dhimmi; that is, tolerated persons in their own country, with only the rights that the Moslem Government chooses to permit them to enjoy. They fear the loss of citizenship because, under Moslem law, no Dhimmi can be a citizen in a Moslem country. They look to the free, democratic and Western world for support. Sadly, the Lebanese Christians have found little support from the West. The West is preoccupied with balance of payments, with terrorist blackmail, with nationals held hostage by Moslem extremists, and by the ever-present shadow of oil embargoes. The Australian Government is reportedly unwilling to break off diplomatic relations with Syria because, since the closing of the Australian Embassy in Beirut, its functions have been carried on by the Embassy in Damascus. The fact is that few Lebanese Christians and few moderate Moslems can risk the journey to Damascus. Many of those seeking asylum in Australia are Christians and Sunni Moslems and for these people merely to try to travel from Beirut to Damascus, to take a bus or taxi along that Damascus road, is to risk disappearing forever. Physical dangers aside, it costs over one month's salary. It costs 3,000 Lebanese pounds to make the journey to Damascus and some Lebanese have had to pay up to $US500 for an Australian visa because of the location of the Embassy. Closing the Embassy in Damascus would be in the interests of those Lebanese Christians and others who wish to migrate to this country. Closing the Embassy in Damascus would be an unmistakable sign to the Syrians that Australia is opposed to government-sponsored terrorism such as that undertaken by Syria, regularly and deliberately. It would also stop the profiteering from the human misery indulged in by the Syrians who virtually control the Embassy. For these reasons, most Lebanese believe that the Australian Embassy staff should never have moved to Damascus. The fact is that once the shooting started it was the Australians who got out virtually first. When the position in West Beirut became untenable, it would have been more supportive of Lebanon to relocate that Embassy somewhere in East Beirut or in Jounieh further up the coast. That is especially so as many other embassies have made such a move without great problems. But, no, the Australian Embassy, once the shooting began in West Beirut, got out and took its affairs to Damascus. I must say that the vacillation of Britain's so-called allies has reportedly delighted President Assad, whose so-called defence budget in 1985, according to estimates of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, was $US3.3 billion. He has received over $US1.9 billion annually since 1978 from the Gulf Co-operation Council and various Arab states, because Syria is supposed to be a front line state. Assad talks of defence, but it is misleading. Syria's armed forces, which number 402,500-that is for a population of just 10 million-seem to serve a purely offensive role. They are not defence forces; they are offensive forces. Thirty thousand of them occupy Lebanon and the rest of them confront Israel and Iraq. Yet the Lebanese pose no threat to Syria, so why should there be 30,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon? Israel has no territorial ambitions beyond what is necessary to secure its own frontiers. There has been peace there since 1975. Observers believe that as Iranian forces muster for moves against Basra, and ultimately Baghdad, Syria's so-called defence forces will exercise not inconsiderable influence in the final outcome. Should Iran and its Syrian ally defeat Iraq, Europe may find the taste of its diplomacy turning to ashes in its mouth. The Australian Government should join the United Kingdom and the United States governments in imposing appropriate sanctions on Syria for its involvement in world terrorism. We should close our embassy in Damascus; we should move back to East Beirut. Through the United Nations we should put pressure on Syria, on the Soviet Union, on Iran, and on all other foreign powers at present interfering in Lebanese affairs, to withdraw and allow the Lebanese people to resolve their problems peaceably. We should make available what humanitarian aid is within our power-grain, foodstuffs and clothing-as soon as possible, to alleviate the distress of homeless Lebanese, and this should be channelled through an agency set up by arrangements between the President of Lebanon and our Government. The conflict in Lebanon has been misrepresented in the Press as a religious war between the Christians and the Muslims. In fact, it is a war of aggression between an allegedly friendly power, Syria, and its virtually defenceless neighbour, Lebanon. The Soviet Union managed to take the Baltic states and to retain possession of them with scarcely a whimper of protest from the West. Is the same thing going to happen with Syria taking over Lebanon? Lebanon has been a bastion of Western values and especially democratic values and it must not be allowed to be swallowed up by Syria, to become yet another Middle Eastern dictatorship. Western powers that attach such importance to democracy should remember that none of the present Arab regimes has a democratically elected leader and in none of the Arab countries are non-Moslems accorded full citizenship rights. May I, in conclusion, put on record that a small group of non-Lebanese Australians has recently formed an Australian Committee for Lebanon. Its aims are simple: To attempt to present the facts about the war that is devastating that small country and to assist with whatever peaceful means are available to us, the members of the committee, members of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party and eminent laymen, in guaranteeing that Lebanon continues to exist as a free, pluralistic and democratic state. Mr Deputy President, while I have a couple of minutes I want to correct a small error of fact in a statement I made to the Senate on 18 November in addressing some of the dreadful misrepresentation by the Tobacco Institute of Australia. It was in relation to advertisements which that Institute had published and which drew upon an article in a British journal. Among the various names I put out, I inadvertently confused two sets of names. In fact, the study which was relied upon by the Tobacco Institute of Australia was carried out by Peter Lee, Jocelyn Chamberlain and Michael Alderson, and not, as I stated on page 2400 of Hansard, by Roberto Masironi, Robin Weiss and Julian Peto. But it was, in fact, Drs Masironi, Weiss and Peto who had to write to the Australian Press to clarify that the study had been made by three individuals and had not been made by the Cancer Institute. And, indeed, that is what I asserted in my speech. The three authors of that study-P. N. Lee, J. Chamberlain and M. Alderson-have not written to the Australian Press to correct the misrepresentations by the Tobacco Institute. In fact, Peter Lee, one of the authors, is a long-time consultant to the Tobacco Advisory Council and other tobacco industry bodies. We have heard that Dr Lee provided advice to the Tobacco Institute of Australia in relation to these advertisements when it ran its defence before the Advertising Standards Council. As honourable senators will be aware, that defence was remarkably ineffective because the Advertising Standards Council found that the Tobacco Institute had breached the advertising code of ethics, as I reported to the Senate. Of the other two authors, Michael Alderson no longer works with the Institute of Cancer Research but Jocelyn Chamberlain does still work there. Of the three doctors-Dr Peto, Dr Weiss and Dr Masironi-Dr Peto is the Director of the Epidemiology Department of the Institute of Cancer Research; Professor Robin Weiss is the Director of the whole Institute. So the people who wrote to the Australian Press to correct the misrepresentations by the Tobacco Institute-Drs Weiss and Peto-are, in fact, very senior officials of the Cancer Institute. It was they who wrote a series of letters to the Australian Press pointing out that the Tobacco Institute could not assert that the findings or conclusions drawn in the paper by several very junior officers in any way represented the Institute of Cancer Research, as had been asserted by the tobacco industry. I place that small correction on the record. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(1.25) —Honourable senators will remember that in 1984 the election was held on 1 December and that makes tomorrow by date, if nothing else, a most important one for me because three days before the 1984 election I collapsed in my electorate office in Midland. I guess to a large number of people here that may not seem to be terribly important, but to me it certainly is. I want to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to a large number of people, but to record also the tremendous changes that have taken place in neurosurgery over recent years. There is not a lot about the whole matter of my collapse that I remember, which I am told is pretty fortunate because it would be most painful. In fact, there is not a great deal that I recall about my stays in two of Perth's major hospitals. I recall various members of staff but not a great deal about the treatment, so it must have been extremely tender loving care that I was receiving. It is important, I feel, for me to use the time available to thank the people who have assisted me in my return to this work. I happen to enjoy my job as a senator very much. I have been here now for 12 1/2 years and I appreciate it. I want to place on public record a sincere thank you to my staff because, whilst I have done that privately, if it had not been for their attention I would certainly not have received the assistance that I needed in those first vital minutes after my collapse. They were alert, they were on the ball, they made the necessary phone calls and then went running to look for help. They found the doctor at the local surgery. A woman who had gone in to the local electoral office to check that her name was on the roll for Saturday's voting happened to be a triple certificated sister. When my secretary burst in the back door and said, `Can anyone help? Senator Coleman has collapsed', she came to make sure that she did what she could. I also have to thank my staff, of course, for making sure that my family were notified of my illness in what I consider to be a correct and acceptable way. I am told that frequently pressure is applied on families because suddenly a teacher at school or a workmate takes a phone call and says to a member of the family, `Your father', or `your mother has just collapsed, you are needed at the hospital'. That applies an incredible amount of pressure on people. I have, of course, also to thank the ambulance people who came very quickly. I do not know that I appreciate the fact that obviously in Western Australia the ambulance lines are tapped by the local media because my secretary informed me that whilst I collapsed at about ten minutes to one and was on my way by seven or eight minutes past one, the phone started ringing straightaway with various media wanting to know whether it was correct that I had in fact been taken off to a Perth hospital. As I said, there was not much that I was aware of at the time. Even though I spent two and a half weeks in Royal Perth Hospital whilst I was having a great deal of treatment, I really do not recall to any great extent the treatment that I was having. Similarly, when I was transferred to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital for the actual operation, I remember the sister telling me that I was going to be quite beautiful; that was while she was in the middle of shaving my head, and I knew that what she was saying was not quite so. That registered, but nothing much else. I really do not recall a great deal until some six or seven days later, after the stitches had been removed and I had been transferred to a ward. There are people, like the physiotherapists at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital who, even after I had been discharged and they recognised that they could do little to help me, nevertheless made me fell as mentally comfortable as they could. There are the eye specialists who are still seeing me, even though I am convinced now that I do not need their assistance. There are people like Michael Hunt, the State psychiatrist who saw me at a time when I began to feel quite bad as I thought that my memory was never going to allow me to even read a newspaper again. He assisted me greatly and I appreciate his help. One of the most important people to be mentioned is the neurosurgeon, Dr Michael Lee, who eventually operated on me. It is not an easy thing to do. I do not know how to thank a person who obviously saved my life. It is difficult to somehow total up the years that you now have to look forward to that without his help you would not have, and yet it is most important that this be recorded. I remember when I first came home from hospital; after some six weeks I was a little horrified to look into my bathroom mirror and see the shaven head with fairly heavy scar tissue from forehead to crown and then back to above the ear. I was pretty shocked at not being able to focus properly with one of my eyes appearing to sit about two inches lower than the other and there was a great dent in my forhead that I was quite sure was never going to change. I do not recall whether there was a mirror in my room at the hospital but I am sure that if there had been, it would have been tactfully removed before I took up residence. It was only much later that I appreciated that I had had three aneurysms on my brain and for them to be treated it was necessary for those incisions to be made into my skull for-as it happened with me, anyway-my brain to be handled while staples were inserted. I was dosed with steroids and it was necessary for me to have fairly intensive care over an extensive period. As I have already said, there is a great deal about my stays in both hospitals that I cannot remember, but I am aware that changes have taken place over the last 18 months or so. For instance, my hair has grown and so the scar tissue is covered. My face has returned to normal and whilst there are still some things lacking, I can appreciate the fact that I am alive only because of the skill of Dr Michael Lee. There is nothing more that I can say, except that it is a debt which will never be repaid and it is a debt which overflows to his partner, Dr Bryant Stokes, who assisted Dr Lee at the operation, and I express the gratitude that I feel for both of them. Quite recently they have, in part, been responsible for the opening of a memorial lecture trust, named after one of the better-known neurosurgeons in Western Australia. It is being called the John Lekias Memorial Lecture Trust. Dr Stokes and Dr Lee have certainly been responsible in part for the establishment of this trust. With money donated it is the intention to take to Perth the people involved in neurology to give lectures, to work with local neurologists and therefore to enable them to maintain communication with people living in other parts of the world. We are gradually learning more about the brain and how it works and our neurosurgeons are amongst the best in the world. I could be biased if I said they are the best in the world. They have a tremendous capacity, but they still need to be able to communicate freely with people in their own area and to be able to extend their treatment of people. There are many people throughout this country who are involved in accidents which leave them with brain damage. There are many people like me who suffer once, and hopefully only once, from aneurysms. Prior to my operation, for instance, I recall being told by a nursing sister that 60 per cent of people die in the first hour with one aneurysm. So I guess that having survived three I can consider myself extremely lucky. I have since been told by Dr Lee that he has operated on a person with five aneurysms and that person has now returned to work. That is surgery that we would not have anticipated was possible 10 or 15 years ago. There are children being born with brain damage who are able to be effectively treated. It is because we need to progress and more fully to understand the role of the brain that the trust that I mentioned, the John Lekias Memorial Lecture Trust, has been established. He was senior neurosurgeon at both the Royal Perth Hospital and the Princess Margaret Hospital for Children in Western Australia for quite some time. He was also a board member at both of those hospitals. He was also President of the Australian Medical Association for a time, so it is appropriate that this lecture trust be named after him. I sincerely hope that people in the community will support the trust to the best of their ability, to enable that incredible work to continue in the name of that incredible man. Lastly, Mr Deputy President, and certainly not least, I have to pay a tribute to my family, those wonderful people who buckled around at the time when it was necessary and gave me the support when I needed it most, even though at times I did not realise or even recognise that I needed it. To my daughter, my son-in-law and their children and my son, I say a very humble thank you. To my husband, Jim, I am not terribly sure what I can say because this is a man who suddenly found himself at home with a 14-year-old son who had to be cared for and a wife in hospital. Sometimes two and three times a day he would come to visit me, bringing all of the things that I love to eat; those sweets, chocolates and things that I really should not have had but I can at least lay the blame at his door that I had them. He is a person who would come from work and prepare an evening meal because I was not capable of doing it; a person who before he went to work in the morning would ensure, because I was not capable of doing anything for myself, that I had everything available to me. He supported me when I made the decision to return to this place, and has recognised my need to finish my term here. I guess what I am really trying to say is that we have to become more aware of the dangers of applying pressure to people. Yet I see we are doing that very thing here. Even though a few years ago when Senator John Knight died rather suddenly we said that we would change the sitting hours and we would make sure that no pressures were applied to people, we suddenly find ourselves sitting in this place for at last four consecutive weeks where our day will start at around 7 a.m. I have two medical people sitting opposite me, Dr Grimes and Dr Peter Baume, who were responsible in part for the establishment of the working hours and who were amongst those who at the time of Senator Knight's death said: `We will never allow this to happen again'. But here we find ourselves in a day that will start at around 7 o'clock and will not conclude in actuality in this chamber until 10.30 p.m. We will apply pressure to every Minister in this place. We will apply pressure to people such as yourself, Mr Deputy President, by the hours that we will insist that you work. We know the problems for our spouses and our families during normal sitting hours and we have to recognise that that is extended when we sit for longer periods. I would simply like to conclude by saying that I want to thank those people both in the Opposition and in my own party who provided me with the assistance that I needed when I first returned to this place. I thank the staff of the Parliament who made that quite a bit more simple than it could have been and I hope and trust that people will contribute not only to the trust that I have mentioned today but to other trusts that I understand are being opened for brain damaged people in other States. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(1.40) —I rise to address very briefly some remarks about the recent untimely death of Mr Phil Thompson, the National President of the Vietnam Veterans Association. I had known Phil until just recently in most favourable circumstances as I had previously been Minister for Veterans' Affairs during the time there were a lot of discussions with his organisation and with him personally about the problems of Vietnam veterans and, in particular, the problems as he considered them to have been caused by Agent Orange and herbicide usage in Vietnam. I must say that in all the time I knew him, which goes right back to the early 1980s, I always thought of him as being totally sincere and dedicated to the welfare of the members of the organisation which he represented. He certainly always presented a very strong case to the Government about the matters that were concerning him and his members and always, I think, acted out of the proper and most noble feelings of anybody who had the trusteeship of such an organisation. My personal dealings with him were always very cordial. We had plenty to talk about at the time that he was seeking from the Fraser Government assistance for his membership; that, of course, led to some fairly detailed and robust discussions at times and, indeed, some of those took place in public places. I want to record my appreciation of the relationship that Phil Thompson brought to me as Minister for Veterans' Affairs and his role as leader of an organisation and the way in which he represented the views of that organisation to the Government. I must say that I regret greatly his passing, especially the manner in which he took his own life apparently as a result of concern over his own health. That health, of course, we had known about for some time and it is unfortunate that it led to his relatively early death. I wish to record my condolences to his family following his demise. Sitting suspended from 1.43 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I remind the Minister that last week he said that he believed the Director of the Australian War Memorial was guilty of misbehaviour, but in an interview on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio in Canberra the Minister admitted that there might be differing opinions as to what constituted misbehaviour. In particular, the Minister said on the ABC that he, the Minister, may `get a differing view from the courts about what constitutes misbehaviour'. I ask the Minister whether he will give an undertaking that he and the Government will do nothing which would prevent Air Vice-Marshal Flemming from having access to the courts in the event that he is dismissed. In other words, will he give a guarantee that, whatever the outcome of the planned procedure involving the Director, the Government will not place any barrier in his way as to his ability to go before a court and argue against any decision to dismiss him on the ground of alleged misbehaviour? Senator GIETZELT —I concede that there are areas of interpretation of what constitutes misbehaviour and they are, of course, matters that, in this dispute, will be finally determined by persons other than me. However, I am firmly of the view that misbehaviour of a senior public servant is inherent in the report conducted by Mr Jones and presented to the Australian War Memorial. I remind the Senate of some of Mr Jones's findings. In relation to the acquisition of the warehouse, the report states: . . . this matter appears to have been handled very badly . . . The Director's minute . . . was both untimely and misleading . . . The Director's response . . . did not in any way address the Minister's questions . . . On the matter relating to the eastern staircase, the report states: The first draft response . . . was deficient in several ways . . . Despite a specific request from the Minister . . . no such assurance was given . . . the Director's advice . . . was both inadequate and misleading. On the top structure of the Australian War Memorial staff, the report states: . . . the advice which was conveyed to the Minister . . . was selective and, as a consequence, misleading . . . the Minister would have good reason to believe that he was given inadequate and misleading information . . . In relation to the 1984-85 annual report, the report states: The Minister's assertion . . . that he was given inadequate and misleading advice is not unreasonable. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister is effectively debating the question I put to him. The question I put to him related only to the processes; it did not relate to the question of whether there was proven misbehaviour or misbehaviour on the part of the air vice-marshal. My question merely related to the processes and procedures which are available to a person in that position and whether the Government intended to place any barrier in the way of any existing remedies which a person in that position might have. The Minister has proceeded to quote from the report of the Jones inquiry into the Australian War Memorial, which is not a matter which I have raised and which is not challenged in a sense in this question or, indeed, by the Opposition. My question merely relates to the processes. I would suggest to you, Mr President, that effectively the Minister is entering into debate not on the question itself but on the whole merits or demerits of the air vice-marshal's position, and that is not a matter which the Opposition has sought to put in issue in this question or, indeed, at other times. Senator GIETZELT —I wish to speak to the point of order. Senator Chaney began his question by referring to statements which I had made on radio, and I am responding to that because he quoted my opinions in respect of that. I therefore need to respond as to what I believe constitutes misbehaviour by a senior public servant. The PRESIDENT —Order! Everyone knows that a Minister is entitled to answer a question in any way he desires, provided he does not enter into the realm of debate. As I understand it, Senator Gietzelt has been quoting from a report to support his interpretation of the word `misbehaviour'. At this stage Senator Gietzelt has not entered into debate and I will allow him to continue in the way in which he is proceeding, but I remind him of standing order 100. Once he does get into the realm of debate, I will have to bring him to order. Senator GIETZELT —Mr President, I am speaking very precisely of the seven issues in respect of which the Jones report identified matters involving misleading the Government, the Australian War Memorial Council or the Minister. Senator Chaney wants to know whether I will give some guarantee about these matters in respect of the next step that the Government contemplates taking in the current dispute involving the Director of the Australian War Memorial. Of course, in addition to the matters that I have referred to, similar statements were made by Mr Jones in respect of the proclamation ceremony, the Heaton letter and the change in the banking arrangements for the Australian War Memorial, which is a very important aspect as the account now stands at almost $10m. The Government has sought advice from a Mr Graham, QC, from the Melbourne Bar, as well as from the Solicitor-General, and it is acting in accordance with that advice. Certain particulars will be made available to the Director and he will be requested to respond in order, firstly, that beyond any shadow of doubt there will be no suggestion, charge or allegation which can be sustained that he has been denied natural justice, as indeed he was not in the way in which the Jones report was prepared. But, having gone down the specific path of affording the Director full opportunity to respond to the matters which the Government has decided should be further examined, and he having responded to those matters, the matters will then be taken, I imagine, back to government or, depending upon the recommendations, to the Governor-General. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to direct his mind to the question which I actually asked, which was whether the Minister could give an undertaking that he and the Government would do nothing which would prevent Air Vice-Marshal Flemming from having access to the courts in the event that he is dismissed; in other words, that there should be no action taken by the Government which would interfere with the legal remedies which are presently available to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. Senator GIETZELT —The innuendo is that somehow the Government is acting in such a way as to deny the proper rights of a citizen to defend himself in any circumstances. There is no intention on the part of the Government to deny Air Vice-Marshal Flemming his due legal and civil rights. I have no authority to suggest that there would be any departure from those principles. Senator COLSTON —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, relates to the activities of the Opposition's so-called Waste Watch Committee. To the Minister's knowledge, have any members of that Committee expressed any interest in the various instances of large scale waste of public funds identified by Mr Ken Jones in his report on the inquiry into the Australian War Memorial? Senator GIETZELT —It is pretty clear from the very selective way the Opposition has highlighted some of these issues that it has been involved in a rather symbolic attempt to suggest that there has been some misappropriation of public funds generally. It has worked itself up into a state of righteous indignation over small grants, in most cases of only a few thousand dollars, to organisations of which it disapproves, even though, as the evidence shows, a number of those grants were made or approved when it was in government. However, it strikes me that Opposition senators have been highly selective in the way that they have dealt with those issues. But they have clearly taken a political decision in respect of the Australian War Memorial. They have ignored the damning evidence and examples of waste in expenditure in the Australian War Memorial's finances uncovered by Mr Jones. To give some examples referred to in the Jones report, $2,250 was lost on the delivery of port to the Memorial when there was never any possibility of recouping funds from the sale of it because the Memorial does not have a liquor licence. There was also over-expenditure on the Director's overseas trip. There was a decision taken at the instigation of the Director to spend $50,000 on the production of 2,000 copies of a World War II Royal Air Force training manual, of which 12 months later only 317 copies had been sold, and a lot of money therefore lost in the process. But the most damning of the items of waste of public expenditure at the Australian War Memorial was the construction of the staircase. We hear nothing from the Opposition about that. I stress that both Mr Jones and the National Capital Development Commission lay the blame for this waste of some $1m squarely with the Director who, on a whim, had the already constructed staircase torn down and rebuilt. In case there are any doubts about the culpability of the Director in this, for the information of honourable senators I table a copy of the letter from the NCDC's Commissioner, Mr Powell, to the then Chairman of the Australian War Memorial Council, Admiral Synnot, dated 22 November 1984, in which Mr Powell expresses his dismay at the action of the Director and advises that in the future NCDC is prepared to deal only with the Memorial Council directly and not with the Director. As the letter shows, the waste of public money on the staircase is not an isolated instance of waste caused by the Director either changing his mind or not being able to make up his mind. Mr Powell also states: There are other instances of ad hoc decisions by the Director and consequent waste that I could list . . . The personal letter from the NCDC Commissioner to Admiral Synnot, who was then the Chairman of the Australian War Memorial Council, will indicate the magnitude of the problem of excessive wastage of public funds by the Director. Senator LEWIS —My question is also directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I will wait until the Minister has turned on his hearing-aid. The PRESIDENT —Order! Has the honour- able senator-- Senator LEWIS —I will wait until Senator Evans leaves the Minister alone. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question or resume his seat. Senator LEWIS —I refer to the Minister's statement on Tuesday night concerning the Australian War Memorial. I ask the Minister-I quote from his statement-who is the `suitably qualified person' who will receive responses by Air Vice-Marshal Flemming to the questions to be drawn up by the Minister-- The PRESIDENT —Order! There are far too many interjections on my right. I have already mentioned that Senator Gietzelt has difficulty in hearing and I ask that Senator Lewis be heard in silence. Senator LEWIS —I ask the Minister: Who is the `suitably qualified person' who will receive responses by Air Vice-Marshal Flemming to the questions to be drawn up by the Minister and the Attorney-General? When will he or she take up the appointment and how long will it last? Finally, what is-again I quote from the Minister's statement-`the particular question of concern' which is to be put to Air Vice-Marshal Flemming? Senator GIETZELT —Negotiations with that suitably eminent person referred to by Senator Lewis have been conducted by the Attorney-General's Department. This afternoon, when those negotiations have been completed with him, I will be in a position to issue a public statement about his appointment. When that is done, I will be in a position also to indicate the issues that will be raised by the Government with the person appointed, who then will, of course, invite a response from the Director. Senator REYNOLDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has the Minister seen a letter from the former Queensland Minister for Health in which Mr Austin persists in calling responsible acquired immune deficiency syndrome education programs `lurid publications of bizarre sexual practices'? What effect does this irresponsible attitude have on the national AIDS education program? Will the Minister ask his colleague, Dr Blewett, to initiate discussions with the new Health Minister, Mr Ahern, with a view to gaining a more enlightened approach to this national health program which cannot and must not be jeopardised by moralising Ministers such as Mr Austin? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware that Mr Austin and his colleagues refused to co-operate in the education program being conducted by the Commonwealth and all the other States in an effort to inhibit the spread of acquired immune deficiency syndrome in this country. Unfortunately, Mr Austin is one of those people who will not face reality and who believe that, if we do not talk or think about something, it will go away. Unfortunately, that is not the experience here or overseas. The documents produced in the AIDS education program, firstly, recognise the realistic situation that exists both in the gay community and amongst intravenous drug users. Secondly, they use the sort of language, in recognising the existence of practices, that Mr Austin may not like but it is the most effective way of communicating with people. I would expect someone so keen on free enterprise in the advertising industry to be aware of the importance of using language that people can understand. Thirdly, we believe and everyone involved with this problem believes that it is terribly important to get the facts, firstly, to the community immediately affected but then to the community generally. If people have the facts, they can take proper action to avoid this very serious illness. I hope that Dr Blewett will be able to have a better rapport with Mr Ahern, the new Health Minister, who is well known to be more enlightened in this and in other areas. One of the difficulties in Queensland is that, unfortunately, the AIDS epidemic, like everything else up there, is being used in a partisan political way. That can only inhibit the effective education programs that we want to conduct. AIDS is a disease and a public health problem; it is not a visitation from on high. It cannot be defeated by exhortation any more than the behaviour of people can be modified, to the extent that Mr Austin believes it can be modified, by ignoring problems as they exist. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. How many people have actually gained employment as a result of the Priority One: Young Australia employment scheme? For how long, on average, will that employment last? How much have the scheme and its associated publicity cost so far? Senator WALSH —I cannot answer those questions off the top of my head. I will have to take them on notice. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. My question follows from an answer that the Minister gave in the Senate yesterday concerning the signing of the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific. Does the Convention's protocol on nuclear waste dumping adopt a definition of radioactive material similar to the definition proposed in the sea dumping legislation currently before the Senate? Did the Government promote the adoption of this standard? If the protocol did not adopt this standard, what was the standard adopted and why? The PRESIDENT —The Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Lewis. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, please withdraw that remark. The PRESIDENT —I withdraw and apologise to both honourable senators. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think we could ask you for a personal explanation afterwards, too. The protocol does not deal with the dumping in the region of radioactive wastes or other radioactive matter and does not, therefore, contain any definition of radioactive material. It deals in detail with a wide range of other hazardous substances. The dumping of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter in the area covered by the SPREP Convention is dealt with in the Convention itself rather than in the protocol because of the political and environmental importance of this type of dumping. Article 10 of the Convention contains an unqualified prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes or other radioactive matter in the Convention area. The approach embodied in Article 10 was supported by Australia as a fully effective way of giving effect to the aim, already expressed by Australia and other South Pacific states in the Rarotonga treaty, of precluding dumping at sea of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter by anyone anywhere in the South Pacific region. I have just had some further information handed to me from the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment which also bears upon this question. Under the circumstances, Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard, if that is acceptable, rather than burdening the Senate by reading it out. I am not sure how relevant it is. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Article 10 of the convention for the protection and development of the natural resources and environment of the South Pacific Region (The S.P.R.E.P. convention) inter alia prohibits the dumping of radioactive wastes or other matter at Sea. Similarly article 7 of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty has the same effect. Since all matter is to some extent radioactive, it is necessary to make a definition of radioactive waste and other material, the dumping of which is prohibited. In the development of the SPREP convention a definition of ``Non-Radioactive'' was agreed, and is incorporated in the text of the convention. This definition proceeds by exempting certain materials (e.g., sewerage sludge and fly ash from power stations), and by subjecting other materials to the test of guidelines developed and promulgated by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Australian Government would, as a party to the SPREP convention, accept this definition. However the definition cannot be used conveniently except with respect to the list of exempted materials. That is because the I.A.E.A. guidelines (so-called ``general principles'') are complicated and cannot readily be used to determine whether a particular substance is not ``radioactive''. Accordingly in the amendment of the environment protection (sea dumping) Act which is currently before the Senate in order to bring Australia's legislation into line with the Treaty and convention requirements, the Government has adopted a definition which is fully consistent with the Treaty definition but against which any dumping proposal can readily be assessed. The definition in effect defines radioactive material by specifying a threshold level of radioactivity of 35 becquerels per gram which is marginally above the radioactivity of the common element, Potassium and well below the activity of materials conventionally regarded as radioactive waste. The Australian Government did not press this latter definition in the course of negotiations of the convention for the reason that other negotiating countries were largely agreed upon the definition, originated by the Cook Islands, which is now incorporated in the convention. Senator BROWNHILL —I refer the Minister representing the Prime Minister to his comments about interest rates on 22 October this year when, in reply to a question from me, he said that interest rates `will fall significantly this financial year'. In light of the Treasurer's comments in Japan that he does not believe that interest rates will fall, and the Prime Minister's comment that he believes that they will fall, is the Minister still prepared to stand by his statement of 22 October? Senator BUTTON —I hope that Senator Brownhill has quoted my statement of 22 October correctly and has not exorcised a portion of what I said from a number of things I said at the time. I trust that the honourable senator has not done that. I referred to this financial year, according to the question the honourable senator asked me. The Opposition has gone through this exercise in the House of Representatives and in public as to whether the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were saying anything different. To resurrect it here indicates a degree of sadness and deja vu in respect of the performance of the Opposition in this place. I do not for a moment think that the Treasurer does not believe that interest rates will fall this financial year. I believe that the Prime Minister believes that they will fall this financial year. Senator Brownhill —And you do. Senator BUTTON —And I do. Senator AULICH —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to reports in this morning's newspapers that Woodside Petroleum Limited has agreed to accept a revised offer from National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd for a controlling stake in the Cooper Basin partner Vamgas Ltd. Is this move by National Mutual consistent with politically pessimistic statements made by one of its directors, John Elliott, in relation to the prospects for long term investment in the Australian economy? Senator WALSH —The short answer is no. That action is quite inconsistent, given that Mr Elliott is a director of National Mutual, with the statements Mr Elliott has made as recently as last month, I believe. For example, he was quoted in the Age on 17 October as saying: The question is: would you invest in this country given the economics that exist today in terms of our efficiency. My answer is: clearly not, for two reasons. He went on to give two reasons. There have been other statements by Mr Elliott which have been all over the place. As I said once before, I do not know whether this should be attributed to too much Fosters or to some more malign reason. He certainly has been inconsistent. This is just the latest statement in a long string of inconsistencies displayed by Mr Elliott. Senator Aulich —I think he thought the Cooper Basin was a South Australian brewery. Senator WALSH —It is not a South Australian brewery. Vamgas is a shareholder in the Cooper Basin joint venture-about 11 per cent. Senator Evans might be able to correct me on that. Mr Elliott has also claimed at various times that he has been misunderstood or misrepresented. I do not know what to make of all the confusion, but I should make two points. Mr Elliott is by no means the only member of the Liberal Party who has been attempting to sabotage the Australian economy. The most notorious example-although it involved somebody who is so insignificant that he probably does not matter-was Ross Lightfoot, the member of the Legislative Assembly for the Western Australian seat of Murchison-Eyre, writing to George Shultz begging him to keep on subsiding American farm exports so that it would further depress the price of Australian agricultural products which would make it more difficult for the Labor Government to remain in office. He thereby displayed that he was committed to nothing and was quite willing to sabotage Australian agriculture and the Australian economy as long as the power lust of the Liberal Party of Australia could be satisfied. If Mr Elliott believes that Australia is not a good place in which to invest he has to account for at least two things: First, why he spent so much Elders IXL Ltd money buying Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd shares in order to secure for himself a place on the BHP board and, secondly, why, as a director of National Mutual, he was a party to a takeover bid for Vamgas. One thing is for sure. One cannot send Vamgas off-shore, given that its principal interest is in the Cooper Basin. Whatever one might be able to do with money these days one certainly cannot transfer a gas field from Australia to somewhere else. There is an obligation on Mr Elliott, if he has any sense of public responsibility, to make it clear to everybody what he really believes about the wisdom of investment in Australia. Senator ARCHER —I refer the Minister representing the Special Minister of State to recommendation 22 of the Stewart Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking, which states: The Australian Federal Police and the State police forces should surrender to the ABCI all information held on organised crime to avoid the duplication of effort and resources and to achieve a truly national system of criminal intelligence. Is this being done, or has the Australian Federal Police been withholding information from the Australian Bureau of Criminal Investigation by denying it computer access to AFP material? If not, what restrictions, if any, are placed on the ABCI obtaining information from the Federal Police? Is it correct that information on more than 50 current operations related to the ABCI's Project Templar has been electronically barred and specifically labelled to prevent ABCI's staff from accessing it? Senator GARETH EVANS —Unfortunately, I have not had notice of that question without notice; so I am not able to answer it other than partly to refer Senator Archer to an answer given by Mr Young on 11 November which addresses some of the recent controversies involving the ABCI. I will take the rest of the question on notice. Senator ZAKHAROV —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment explain to the Senate the reasons for the Government's deferral of its application for world heritage listing of stage 2 of Kakadu National Park? Senator RYAN —As Senator Evans foreshadowed in the Senate on 25 November, the delay in the listing of stage 2 of Kakadu National Park until 1987 will not in any way jeopardise the protection of the park. In the first place, as was said then, the mere seeking of listing of the park for world heritage listing, which occurred on 17 September, provides the foundation under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act upon which the Governor-General can issue a proclamation prohibiting any action that he has reasonable grounds to consider threatens the values of the park. This power provides sufficient basis to ensure fully the protection of stage 2 pending a decision on its status by the World Heritage Committee next year. In any case, in order to place the protection of the existing park beyond any doubt and to dispense with any further obstruction in the courts by companies or others claiming interests in the existing park, my colleague, Mr Cohen, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, has this morning introduced in another place a Bill to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act which will have the effect of preventing exploration and mining for minerals and related operations in the park. Anyone who acts on the assumption that the Government can be dissuaded or prevented from fulfilling its commitment that there shall be no mining in the existing park is wasting his time. Equally, the procedural difficulty occasioned this week to the Government's pursuit of the world heritage nomination will make no material difference to that nomination other than to delay it to the next session of the World Heritage Committee in 1987. Senator NEWMAN —I ask the Leader of the Government a question. Is it a fact, as claimed by Rydges business magazine, that since May 1983 671,000 jobs have been created? Is it also a fact that the government sector absorbed 205,000 or approximately one-third of that number? Is the Government intending to absorb into the public sector the unemployed from the motor vehicle and textile and footwear industries who are losing or will lose their jobs as a direct result of Government action? Senator BUTTON —I think the figure of 671,000 jobs which have been created since this Government came to office is approximately correct. I was asked whether 205,000 of those jobs are in the public sector. I doubt that very much. I am only an amateur arithmetician but my recollection is that throughout last year in excess of 80 per cent of jobs-I think that was the pattern largely throughout-were in the private sector. I will certainly undertake to check those figures and provide any additional information which I can on that matter. I was then asked whether the people who are unemployed as a result of the Government's motor vehicle plan and the intentions which the Government might have in respect of the textile, clothing and footwear industries would be absorbed by the public sector. I would think that very unlikely. The Government, as Senator Newman would know if she read the Budget Papers, is committed to constraining the size of the public sector so I think it is most unlikely that those people would be absorbed into that sector. There is an understanding, which is perhaps larger than Senator Newman's understanding, that in a dynamic economy such as this some sectors will decline and others will grow. It is also widely recognised throughout the developed world that sectors of industry such as the motor vehicle industry and the textile, clothing and footwear industries are destined to have declines in employment. When I announced the car plan in the Senate and on many occasions publicly I said that many fewer people will be employed in the motor vehicle industry in 1992 than are employed now. The trade unions accept it and anybody who knows anything about the matter accepts it except, apparently, Senator Newman. Certainly, there will be declines in employment in the textile, clothing and footwear industries. If they are not brought about by government policy, and they may be to some extent, they will undoubtedly be brought about by changes in technology. The Europeans talk about bringing the textile and clothing industries back to Europe by 1991, in competition with countries such as China. How do honourable senators think that they will do that? Do they think the Europeans will do it on the basis of vast employment? Of course not; it will be done on the basis of capital intensivity. Those are the changes which are taking place in those industries and they will go on. Senator Newman singles out those industries. If I had time I would single out others in which the growth rates in employment have been in the order of 50 per cent. Senator FOREMAN —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to an article in the Adelaide News of 15 October reporting a call by the Liberal member for Mayo, Alexander Downer, for the Birdwood Mill to be designated the National Motor Museum with a commitment to future funding of $14.4m? What are the financial implications of such a forward commitment? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the report to which Senator Foreman referred, particularly because, as has been accurately reported for once in the Press, I met Mr Downer in the members' bar last week. He has such a high profile that I did not recognise him as a member of the Australian Parliament and I thought he was one of the visiting English delegation. I take a particular interest in the matter, I suppose, because of that incident. Essentially the question related to the amount of $14.4m which is being sought. It is very clear that that does not sit at all comfortably with Mr Downer's activities as a member of the so-called Waste Watch Committee. I can only assume that the reason for Mr Downer's inconsistency was either a desire to grab publicity for himself so that he might have a somewhat higher profile than he has previously had and so members of the Government might recognise him when they see him around Parliament House or, alternatively and I suspect more likely, the fact that the proposed national motor museum is located in his electorate. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Is it a fact that after the introduction of the Australia Card any person who is authorised to sign cheques for any organisation such as the local branch of a political party, a pony club, a football club, such as St George Rugby League Club, a Jaycees club, a corgie club or a geranium club, will be guilty of an offence if that person does not affix his identity number to the transaction? Does this not establish an audit trail that could be an unwanted invasion of personal privacy? Senator WALSH —It is a fact that following the introduction of the Australia Card it will not be possible for people to indulge in wholesale tax evasion of the type advocated and defended by Mr Wilson Tuckey a couple of weeks ago and about which I spoke yesterday, from which to the best of my knowledge the Leader of the Opposition has yet to dissociate himself. I can only assume that that blanket endorsement of tax evasion put out by Mr Tuckey a couple of weeks ago is accepted by the Liberal Party and endorsed in turn by the Leader of the Opposition. Whether in some obscure circumstances-I have forgotten what the question was, it was so unimportant. I will get an answer from the Minister. I assure Senator Sheil that when a sufficient number of Opposition senators have defected and voted for the Australia Card to ensure its introduction, it will no longer be possible to engage in wholesale tax evasion of the type recommended by Mr Tuckey a couple of weeks ago. Senator SHEIL —I ask a supplementary question. I regret that the Minister seems to be suffering from neuronal fall-out. The question was not about tax evasion. It asked whether authorised signatories to cheques for clubs had to affix their ID numbers to their cheques. Is that not an invasion of privacy? Senator WALSH —I have already said that I will get an answer from Dr Blewett. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It concerns the Treaty of Mutual Respect, Co-operation and Friendship recently signed by Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. Will the signing lead to the likelihood of joint Papua New Guinea-Indonesian military operations in border disturbances, as suggested by Indonesia's Dr Mochtar? What are the likely consequences of the signing for the 10,000 Irian Jaya border crossers currently living in the camps near the border? Does the Treaty serve to diminish opportunities for Australian participation in attempts to bring about a satisfactory resolution of the border crossers problem? Senator GARETH EVANS —There have been some misunderstandings about the scope, effect and implications of this Treaty on the border crosser issue. Let me try to clarify the situation. The Treaty of Mutual Respect, Co-operation and Friendship between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea was signed by the Indonesian and Papua New Guinean Foreign Ministers on 27 October in Port Moresby. The legislatures of those two countries must still ratify the Treaty. The express purposes of the Treaty are to promote respect for both country's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence; and to commit both countries to the avoidance and peaceful resolution of disputes and to the facilitation of contacts and exchanges between their peoples. The Treaty refers to each party's right to be free from external interference in their internal affairs. The Australian Government welcomes all steps taken by Papua New Guinea and Indonesia to develop and expand their relationship, given that both countries are important regional partners of Australia. The Treaty does not directly address border issues between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, nor does it provide for joint military operations in the border area. Border issues are handled by both countries through separate bilateral machinery set up for that purpose. It is not anticipated that the Treaty will have any immediate consequences for the approximately 11,000 Irian Jayans who are in border camps in Papua New Guinea. At the request of the Papua New Guinea Government, these border crossers are being cared for with the help of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Australia has provided assistance, as is well known, for the Irian Jayans through the UNHCR. There is no reason why Australia should not be able to continue to provide such assistance in the future if the need for it remains. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to the $725,000 Federal contribution to the establishment of a yabby farm at the Gerard Reserve in the Riverland and the recent Aboriginal Development Commission study which concluded that a further $612,000 would be needed to repair deterioration and get the project operational. I further refer the Minister to the Reserve Chairman's statement that the Council had never wanted the 16 pond project and would have preferred something that the people could manage as a community. I ask the Minister: What account, if any, was taken of the Reserve Council's wishes prior to this project being undertaken? Who engaged and drew up the brief given to the consultants Trojan and Owen, and what was their fee? As the Reserve did not have control of the funds, who did have ultimate responsibility, the community employment program secretariat or the Aboriginal Development Commission? Lastly, does this fiasco represent another example of this Government and its bureaucracy trying to tell Aboriginal communities what is good for them, irrespective of their wishes? Senator RYAN —I think I can safely say no to the last part of Senator Vanstone's question, but as the rest of her question was detailed and specific and I have no information on it with me, I suggest that she put the question on notice. Senator JONES —Is the Minister for Community Services aware of a report in the Brisbane Telegraph of 26 November 1986 containing allegations by the Queensland Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs, Mrs Chapman, that the Commonwealth Government is ignoring Queensland's needy when it comes to funding emergency relief? Can the Minister give any details to show that the claims made are inaccurate? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I did see the article in the Brisbane Telegraph and, for the second time this week, I have had to say that Mrs Chapman is again telling fibs. She has obviously put out a series of statements this week about Commonwealth-State funding and in this case, as Senator Jones has said, it is about emergency relief. In keeping with other Commonwealth funded programs, Queensland receives its rightful share of emergency relief funding. In fact, as I said the other day, Queensland has 16 per cent of the population and receives 16 per cent of the national allocation of funds for emergency relief. At the moment emergency relief is a combined responsibility of the Commonwealth, the States and the voluntary sector. In 1979 the previous Government for the first time became involved in the provision of emergency relief. It regretted it from day one and this Government regrets it also. Prior to that, emergency relief was primarily a State responsibility. In 1986-87 Queensland will receive $1.033m in Commonwealth funds for emergency relief. In the same period the Queensland Government will contribute approximately $900,000. If we want to contrast that with the contribution by other States in this area, Western Australia contributes in excess of $4m. The Commonwealth has been involved in emergency relief only for the last six or seven years and in the time of this Government the Commonwealth has contributed over $3.9m to Queensland alone. The fact that Queensland has a lower percentage increase in general reflects the fact that Queensland has been receiving more than its fair share, disadvantaging other States, while the Queensland Government in turn has been contributing less. This is standard for the Queensland Government. The problem here is also that most of the people who come for emergency relief are seeking it because they are having difficulty with State charges and taxes. In Queensland electricity charges are substantially higher than they are in the other States and Queensland, unlike the other States, provides no concessions in that area. The eligibility test of the mortgage and rent relief scheme is more stringent in Queensland than it is in other States and the relief is paid only once a year. People in the private rental area have great difficulties at times and need emergency relief. No transport concessions are available in Queensland. The absence of these fringe benefits in Queensland, the lower percentage expenditure in programs in areas such as emergency relief and family support-the fact that the Queensland Government is not interested in expenditure in those areas-means that, when we combine the Commonwealth and State funds in Queensland, Queenslanders get less, but they get less because of lower State funding and not because of lower Commonwealth funding. I think it is really a bit rich for the good Mrs Chapman, who considers herself such a pillar of virtue in the community, to go around trying to cover up the lack of interest of the Queensland Government in poor people and in providing welfare expenditure. It is a bit rich for her to try to accuse the Federal Government of short changing Queensland. She apparently expects the Federal Government to make up for the lack of expenditure by the Queensland Government, unlike the Western Australian Government, for instance. Senator BOSWELL —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to the fact that Queensland Aboriginals and Islanders receive only 9 per cent of the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs budget allocations, including only 6 per cent of the allocation in heritage and cultural programs, economic and community development, social services, legal services and corporate services. As Queensland has 28 per cent of Australia's Aboriginal population, when might Queensland Aboriginals and Islanders receive a fair allocation of Federal Government funds to assist in their economic and social development? Senator RYAN —It is a most unusual and therefore quite welcome phenomenon for a Queensland National Party senator to express any interest at all in the Aboriginal population of Queensland. I have no way of confirming the analysis of funding for various Aboriginal programs by the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs that Senator Boswell's question contained, so I suggest that he put that question on notice and Mr Holding will reply to it. Senator MAGUIRE —Does the Minister representing the Treasurer have information on the latest index of consumer confidence published by the Melbourne University Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research and the Morgan market research organisation? If so, does the index show an upturn in consumer confidence in October? What can the turnaround in the index of consumer sentiment be attributed to? Senator Grimes —Good government. Senator WALSH —Good government, as Senator Grimes says, is the short answer to the last part of the question. I am familiar with the figures outlined in that survey, which show that the index of consumer confidence rose by 11 points to 90 points in round figures. So, on a scale of 90, an increase of 11 points, of course, is a very large increase and a marked improvement-which is acknowledged-over that which had prevailed for most of the year. The very big upturn in consumer confidence was attributed principally to the stability of the Australian dollar over the last month or two months. Previously, the apparent instability of the Australian dollar was a cause of consumer pessimism, whether or not it ought to have been. That is something which, I presume, Liberal Party research has also demonstrated. It accounts for its continuous attempts to sabotage the Australian economy by undermining the currency. Ever since February 1983 the Opposition, on an almost continuous basis, has been dedicated to establishing a run on the dollar, and it continues to do so. Its efforts, however, have failed. The dollar has shown itself to be very stable in the last six weeks. It has not varied more than one or two percentage points, and has shown a slight upward drift during that period. When people were asked how they felt about their personal finances, the researchers said that optimists outweighed pessimists. They concluded: Clearly, the renewed recognition of the coming personal tax cuts has had a strong effect here. The tax cuts, of course, could not have been responsibly delivered had the greater part of the tax reform package not passed the Senate in spite of the destructive, or unsuccessfully destructive, efforts of the Opposition. So all of those things which are seen as good by consumers are developments which have happened in spite of the efforts of the Opposition. Fewer people thought that now was a bad time to buy minor consumer items. The researchers concluded that there was some justification for optimism on consumer sentiment and spending. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to reports of serious differences within the Government over the appropriate response it should make to the recent report on protection for the Australian textile, clothing and footwear industries. What stage has been reached in settling these differences? When can a decision by the Government be expected so that uncertainties can be laid to rest? Senator BUTTON —I would not be too concerned about laying uncertainties to rest. The uncertainties have been about for many years. I do not think that the current situation heightens the drama by more than a couple of degrees. Insofar as the honourable senator's question relates to differences within the Government, there are often differences within the Government about various issues but this Government has always had the capacity to resolve them and make decisions which are in the best interests of the community. That will be apparent in any decision that is made on this matter, as it has been on others. I am unable to say precisely when a decision will be announced. But I can assure the honourable senator that as soon as I know, I will let him know. Senator CROWLEY —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been drawn to an article in the Australian of 20 November 1986, addressing the issue of the advertising industry's portrayal of women and claims that the media images of women may contribute to such illnesses as anorexia nervosa? Further, there is a claim that the images of women as little and soft may promote attitudes that encourage domestic violence. Can the Minister comment on these claims? Does he see the importance of preventive health measures by the Government taking account of images portrayed in the media? Senator GRIMES —Anorexia nervosa is a very serious illness with complex emotional and physical characteristics, one of which is compulsive dieting, leading to severe physical illnesses and, unfortunately, frequently death. I think about 95 per cent of people who suffer from it are teenage girls, which is a considerable problem. It is a most distressing disease to attempt to treat. One of the problems is that its incidence has increased in recent years. Many of those who deal with the problem think that the disease is aggravated and contributed to by the fact that the media, particularly the advertising media, show the most desirable-or the only desirable-form for a woman to be thin, sometimes excessively thin. Even if young women who are not suffering from anorexia nervosa diet excessively, they can suffer physical illnesses because of their attempts to conform with this form. For each person there is a build which is compatible with good health. One need only look at Senator Crowley, Senator Chaney, Senator Withers and me to realise that there are considerable differences in this area. But there is a genuine concern, which was expressed at the conference referred to by the article in the Australian, that the media should stop trying to stereotype women in this way-and, of course, in other ways-because of the difficult effect it has on some young women which aggravates this sort of disease. I will have to refer Senator Crowley's question to Dr Blewett to find out what the Government is doing about this matter. In the area of advertising, of course, the Government has very little capacity to do anything. I think we can only endeavour to persuade the industry that sometimes being thin is not the only way to be beautiful. It will be a great relief for many of us who, from the day we were born, were not built that way. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Given the Government's preoccupation with the wages area, what steps is the Government taking to ameliorate other cost increases, including those reflected in consumer price index figures? Senator BUTTON —I am sorry, I did not catch the last part of the question. Senator Watson said we were preoccupied with wages. What are we not preoccupied with? Senator Watson —What steps is the Government taking to ameliorate other cost increases, including those reflected in consumer price index figures? Senator BUTTON —That is too hard for me, Senator. I cannot answer that. Senator McKIERNAN —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Territories clarify the contents of a recent announcement by the Minister for Territories regarding pensioner rebates on electricity accounts in the Australian Capital Territory? Will war widows and other Veterans' Affairs beneficiaries be entitled to the rebates? Further, I ask the Minister to detail how home users of life support systems will benefit from the revised procedures. Senator GIETZELT —My colleague the Minister for Territories, Mr Scholes, has announced that as from yesterday there will be a 100 per cent increase in the pensioner rebate for electricity charges in the Australian Capital Territory. This is the first increase since 1981. It brings the rebate into line with the movements in costs since that time. In recognition of Canberra's severe winter and the consequent high heating costs, the $80 rebate annually will apply on the basis of a rebate of $20 in each of the two highest billing periods, in winter, and $10 in each of the other two-month periods. That rebate will apply to all pensioners in the Australian Capital Territory. In relation to the second part of Senator McKiernan's question, all pensioners and beneficiaries of the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs who hold a pensioner health benefits card are eligible as well as war widows in possession of the dependant treatment entitlement card in the special totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner group. In respect of the third part of the question, the Minister has also announced the introduction of a special $60 per annum electricity rebate for home users of life support equipment in the Australian Capital Territory. So people who use home dialysis machines, oxygen concentrators and respirators or similar life support equipment will be eligible. I inform the Senate that the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority maintains a register of those specific users of electricity to ensure that the power supply to life support systems is not disrupted. Senator BUTTON —On 15 October-six weeks ago-Senator Sir John Carrick asked me a question without notice concerning the implications of international conventions on compulsory work for the dole schemes. I undertook to provide him with an answer as soon as possible. The Prime Minister has supplied an answer to the honourable senator's question. It comes from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet because the question was directed to me as Leader of the Government in the Senate. The answer is as follows: Australia is party to three international treaties which prohibit the use of compulsory labour and which impinge on the introduction of a compulsory work for the dole scheme in Australia. They are: International Labour Organisation Convention No. 29, Forced Labour, 1930; International Labour Organisation Convention No. 105, Abolition of Forced Labour, 1957; and the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. These instruments specifically prohibit the use of labour which is exacted from persons under threat of penalty and for which these persons have not voluntarily offered themselves. A penalty need not be in the form of penal sanctions but might also take the form of a loss of certain rights or privileges. The introduction of a universal scheme which made receipt of unemployment benefits conditional upon performance of unpaid work may contravene one or more of these conventions. However, the question of whether a particular scheme would or would not contravene all the conventions taken together would depend upon the precise nature and conditions of the scheme. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to a display of emergency equipment and a description of emergency procedures for Parliament House now in Senate Committee Room No. 3. Procedures have been established to provide for the safety of all occupants of the building in the event of fire or other emergencies. These emergency procedures are supported by an organisation which includes a control room operating 24 hours a day, trained wardens, evacuation teams and first-aid officers. For these emergency procedures to work effectively all occupants of Parliament House should be familiar with the emergency plans and equipment. I urge all honourable senators and their staff to visit the display, which will be open until 4 p.m. today and again from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. tomorrow. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I present the 261st report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator WATSON —by leave-This report is about the Australian Capital Territory Internal Omnibus Network known as ACTION. Its findings show that ACTION conducts a reliable and comfortable service which is generally of a high standard but that there are significant problems which prevent it maximising efficiency and accountability. This report addresses these problems. The Committee believes that ACTION's lack of suitable information systems and its administrative location within the Department of Territories are fundamental to many of its difficulties. ACTION does not appear to have full control and responsibility for its operations. While the Committee believes that ACTION should be given greater autonomy, it is firmly of the view that ACTION should remain accountable to the Minister for Territories, the Parliament and the community it serves. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that: steps be taken to form ACTION into a ministerially accountable authority to serve the public transport needs of Canberra. The Committee was somewhat reluctant to accept that ACTION should become a statutory authority in order to improve efficiency. However it believes that ACTION should operate with greater independence. As Canberra's population continues to grow this independence will become vital to ensure the continuation of an efficient bus service. The granting of greater independence to ACTION should not be, however, at the cost of accountability. The Committee became aware of several sensitive industrial issues associated with ACTION. On two of these issues-split shifts and part-time drivers-the Committee recommends that: ACTION conduct a detailed evaluation of these matters with the Transport Workers' Union. The Committee was concerned to find that ACTION had no bus acquisitions policy. ACTION now has five brands of buses in its 400- strong fleet of buses. This variety of buses contrasts markedly with other transport operators and appeared to lead to higher costs. The Committee therefore recommends that: ACTION develop a methodology for estimating the economic life of its bus fleet and then proceed to estimate the expected bus life of the various types of bus in the ACTION fleet, formulate a bus acquisitions policy, and annually review that policy. The Committee's report addresses several other important issues connected with: ACTION's performance standards, inadequate information systems, limited annual reporting, problems with fare collection, and the provision of school bus services. While the implementation of the recommendations of this report will assist ACTION in overcoming many of its problems, the joint study currently being conducted by the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories should also provide ACTION with much-needed information on which to base its future operations. The problems identified by the Auditor- General in the operation of ACTION and the necessity for further recommendations in this report confirm the importance of such audits and their review by this Committee and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, which shares the responsibility to review efficiency audits. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the Public Accounts Committee, and especially Mr Trevor Rowe, who assisted in the preparation of this report. I commend the report to honourable senators. Consideration resumed. Department of Resources and Energy Proposed expenditure, $147,129,000. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.09) —Before the luncheon suspension I had made some comments upon the performance of the Department of Resources and Energy concerning energy conservation, conversion and exploration. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), in his reply, remarked that I had been somewhat harsh in my criticisms. He did not in any way reply to the specifics to which I had directed myself. For example, I had said that the whole program for the conversion of government commercial fleets to liquefied petroleum gas in place of petrol had been virtually dismantled. I also made the point that the consumption of oil in Australia is running at an increase of something just less than 2 per cent per year, whereas it was foreshadowed to be less than one per cent per year, and by contrast with the rest of the world we are profligate in its use. I pointed out that, with the decline of Bass Strait production and with the foreshadowed drop in self-sufficiency in Australia, we were in a perilous state. Therefore, I put to the Committee that in no way is it harsh for me to say that the Government's program on conservation, conversion and exploration of our energy resources is very poor. Exploration is cut in half. On the Minister's own admission, the Bureau of Mineral Resources' projection is that, to use his words, there is a 50 per cent chance that Australia will be 50 per cent self-sufficient in the early 1990s. The Minister acknowledges that that would be a drop of at least 30 per cent in production and, in terms of our necessity to import oil, would cost something like $3 billion. I simply say, without intending in any way to take up time, that far from being harsh I made the point that our failure had been in respect of a conversion to liquefied petroleum gas, in our significant real increase in the use of oil each year and the decline in exploration. While I am on my feet, let me direct my mind to the Estimates and to the question of uranium. The Minister will recall that during the discussion on the prospective development of Coronation Hill a series of questions were directed to him regarding what would happen if, prospectively, uranium turned up in the mining. Unless I misunderstood him, he virtually said that if uranium was found, it would not be developed and that it would be put back in the ground. Senator Crichton-Browne —Why? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I do not wish to put words into his mouth, but that is because the policy of the Australian Labor Party is to develop only those specifics that have been set, that is, Roxby Downs and the present Ranger development. The Estimates Hansard contains the debate on this, and also the evidence on what is called the little `red book'. The little `red book', of course, sets out the picture that, contrary to what a series of Ministers and specifically the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, used to preach to us when he was the Minister, there is now a growing market for the sale of uranium. Whenever Senator Walsh was asked about this, he always fended it off by saying that there was no point in developing further uranium mines in Australia because there were no world markets. Two authorities contradicted him. One authority is the Australian Science and Technology Council report-Professor Slatyer's report-which foreshadowed a very significantly increased world market of which Australia could gain billions of dollars. The ASTEC report urged Australia to go into the wider field of the nuclear cycle. We have now also the survey of world markets. I quote from the Hansard of Estimates Committee E at page 245, where it was stated that the News Digest said: There's been a world run-down in stockpiles of uranium needed by nuclear power stations according to the latest `red book', a study on uranium mining published every two years jointly by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency. I have been privileged to look at that. It shows that there is clear evidence that for the years ahead there will be opportunities for countries to seek out and get export markets for uranium. Australia is in a ludicrous position; it could not be in a more ludicrous position. The Labor Party's policy on uranium is that it will mine, mill and export uranium, but only a limited amount from Ranger and Roxby Downs, and that it will not export other uranium or development other mines. That is a purely ideological stand that is irrational because, if mining, milling and exports are right for Ranger and Roxby Downs, they are right in principle for Australia. If it is safe within the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and within our safeguards to export uranium as we are doing at this moment, then exporting more uranium must be right. How can some uranium be right but more uranium be wrong? I could not have conceived a more ludicrous situation than the situation that emerged from the Coronation Hill examination. It may well be true that little uranium will be found at Coronation Hill, although those who know the Mount Brockman area and the escarpment and are aware of the leaching of uranium over the centuries throughout the whole of that area-the uranium province in Arnhem Land-would have to say that prospectively there is a likelihood of some uranium being found, no matter where one turned up a cubic metre of soil. Therefore, it is not a sufficient answer to say: `Well, the answer is that it is probably not prospectively significant'. Just as Roxby Downs needs uranium, gold and a few other things to make it prospective, the fact is that any mining venture, if it turned up uranium, would need to be able to freely export it. In the situation of Australia's economic crisis today it would be outrageous if there were opportunities to earn more money by exports but the Government, because of the pressure of its left wing, and for no other reason, put in place a purely irrational policy which denied the Australian people-- Senator Georges —I have got no wings. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It is minus one in its left wing at the moment; a very happy one, too. The fact is that all the pressure should be to earn more and more in terms of exports. If it is right to export some uranium, it is right to export more uranium. In this situation we have the policies of the Labor Party being condemned and ridiculed, not by me or by the Opposition, but by substantial world authorities. Firstly, there is the ASTEC report. Can there be a more prestigious report than that of the Australian Science and Technology Council, headed by a most distinguished Australian, Professor Slatyer? That report was adopted substantially by the Government, but with this left out: There are huge new markets for Australian uranium into the 1990s which would literally yield billions of dollars of export earnings. It recommended that Australia should venture into the rest of the nuclear cycle, including, of course, enrichment. What did this Government do? It stopped a process whereby a commercial group had virtually come to the point where it was likely that Australia would go into partnership with Urenco-Centec, the big European enricher, which would have given Australia hundreds of millions of dollars more value-added for our earnings and exports. Enrichment involves no ideological difference in terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, because we are tightly controlled by that. There is no difference except the pressure of numbers of the Left. Senator Crichton-Browne —And it is one of the very few metals that would have been value-added, too. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —That is right. However, let me put that aside. The International Atomic Energy Agency-the red book-says that there are new markets for the future. The Government cannot deny that today even though over the years Senator Walsh used such a denial as a pet answer because he knew that he could not fall back on the ridiculous argument that one can have some mines but not more mines. We have the completely ludicrous situation of the Minister for Resources and Energy saying quite emphatically that if there were uranium at Coronation Hill the Government would not allow it to be extracted, milled or exported even though the sale of this mineral could add millions of dollars to our export earnings and offset our balance of trade deficit because the Australian Labor Party's policy says that mining can go so far but no further. If there is one great area in which the Australian people can seek to overcome our adverse balance of trade, it is to do what is the safe and proper thing to do-it is to do what we have pledged to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact, at this moment, we are in breach of the Treaty. Because we are retreating from obligations of the Treaty, we are likely to lose our place on the governing body of the International Atomic Energy Agency. That would be a disaster. But this could happen because we are not carrying out our responsibilities. Our duties under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are quite clear. They are to sell to other members within the Treaty under strict rules the uranium that we have. Every time a report comes out on world uranium it shows that, whilst Australia has some of the most abundant, richest and cheapest uranium in the world, we are performing poorly in terms of exports; that, whilst we have the minerals available for export, we are doing nothing about it. I rise to speak on this matter because Australia faces an extreme balance of trade situation. We face a decline in our manufacturing industries. Yet, in the face of this, we are rejecting not only the export of yellowcake but also the establishment of an enrichment industry which could employ hundreds of people and could be value-added to what we are doing. I simply say that in my time I have not heard anything that is more illogical than that response. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.23) —I have already responded to most of those points in the context of the Estimates committee hearing itself on 18 September. The only short point that I would want now to make to even up the record is to say, as I did in fact during the Estimates Committee hearing, that given the total supply and demand situation for uranium now and into the mid-1990s, our policy, I think, remains a perfectly rational and defensible one bearing in mind that there is a capacity to expand Ranger from 3,000 to 6,000 tonnes per annum and there are plans to double that capacity by 1990. Furthermore, there is the 2,000 tones per annum initial production anyway from Roxby Downs with the capability of building up thereafter. Those two mines between them will satisfy all the conceivable demands on and opportunities for Australia until at least well into the 1990s. It may be that at that time some of the things that Senator Sir John Carrick talks about will come back onto the political agenda of the Australian Labor Party and be discussed again. But, for the moment, the Party's policy is perfectly clear. I certainly do not do other than defend that policy at the moment-the three mines policy, as it has been described-because I believe that it does reflect, for the reasons I have just indicated, present supply and demand realities; on the demand side, bearing in mind very much what the red book of the uranium industry projects and describes. I know that arguments can be had about the feasibility or desirability of domestic enrichment within Australia. This was something that a Labor government in the past was very enthusiastic about. It is not impossible, again in the ebb and flow of events, that it may be something that a Labor government in the future would be prepared to look at again. But I repeat that our policy is clear. Certainly we are not being in any way inhibited in taking advantage of our uranium resources by the application of that policy at the moment. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.25) —If, indeed, the Minister says that his policy is rational, no doubt he would do with uranium what is done with every other commercial export from Australia-that is, he would allow commerce and industry, the private sector, to go out in the world and test whether there is a market. The mining industry could set up a committee to go around the world to try to find markets and, if it is successful, to come back and tell the Government. I ask the Minister: Why is the Government determining that it is the authority that decides what the world market for uranium is? Why is it that the Government singles out uranium but yet allows private industry to go abroad and find markets in respect of all other commodities, be they coal, wheat, wool or meat? I ask specifically whether the Government will allow private industry to go in search of the market. Will it heed what in fact the industry says? Secondly, the Minister has now said that maybe in future the Government will allow enrichment to take place. The Minister must know that we are now at a critical stage because what the Japanese market does and where it goes for enrichment will decide whether or not for the long term future Australia will have an enrichment industry. So it is not a question of saying: `We might have it in the future'. We now notice a retreat in ideology. The point made about enrichment was wrong. If we look at the second reading speech of legislation that is still before this Parliament we will see that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission will not in future even study enrichment and the centrifuge plant is to be closed down. So how can the Minister get up here now and say something quite in contradiction to what he said before? Quite clearly from what has been said before, enrichment is out-it has been opposed in the second reading speech of the legislation that is before us. But now the Minister says: `Maybe we will get around to it some time'. I put it to the Minister: Is there not a great possibility of Australia entering the market and is it not a fact that the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia, UEGA, said that it could almost certainly arrange a co-partnership with Urenco if it could get the Japanese market to come in? Indeed, is it not a fact that the Japanese are looking elsewhere for enrichment and even setting up their own plans? Is it not, therefore, a critical time? So, I ask two questions: Will the Government allow commerce to find markets overseas? Is it not a fact that this is a critical time for determination on enrichment? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.28) —The Government, of course, places no inhibition on companies looking at market opportunities for a whole variety of products. We listen with interest to what they tell us about their perceptions in that respect. However, we make our policy decisions as a party and a government, not just on considerations of commercial supply and demand although I do call those considerations in aid and justification of our present policy, but, of course, on the basis of a whole variety of public policy considerations of a kind that are quite familiar in the ongoing debate about the use of uranium. Taking into account all the problems which we know about safety, waste disposal and matters of that kind, a very genuine concern exists that the uranium industry has not yet solved all the problems it should before we could unequivocally and enthusiastically embrace it in every manifestation. Beyond that, there is nothing more I can say. As to grabbing the market opportunity for enrichment activity, I want to make it absolutely clear that I did not say we would engage in enrichment some time in the future. I said it was not impossible that that could reappear on the political agenda at some time in the future. Whether there is such a market opportunity at the moment is something that I am not at all clear about on the information I have been given. Certainly in terms of the enrichment technology that was being developed at the Atomic Energy Commission, I have been advised, as I recall, that we are rather off on a side track of our own in that respect. World technology has taken a different course and we are not at all as well placed as a result of that earlier effort to pick up the ball again, even if we wanted to. But we do not want to at the moment. Our position is clear, and if there is anything more I can add on that subject as a result of taking it on notice, as I will, I will do so. But at the moment that is all I can usefully contribute to this debate. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.31) —I rise on this matter because what the Minister has said could influence commerce. My understanding is quite different from what the Minister has just said about the technology on enrichment. The Minister has suggested that the centrifuge system the Atomic Energy Commission has been developing would be out of step with the future. I ask the Minister specifically not to give an answer off the top of his head now, and I mean no disrespect in that, but is it not a fact that Urenco-Centec, the big potential co-partner and the company that is likely to assist Australia in this, has firmed on the idea of middle sized centrifuge as distinct from diffusion, that laser technology is not at the moment being contemplated and that in fact for ordinary commercial reasons the middle sized centrifuge, the European centrifuge, as distinct from the big American one, is still basically the kind of technology that is being considered for the next few decades and it is not, indeed, as the Minister has said? I ask him to look at that because it would be utterly wrong if that is not so. I also ask him: Is it not a fact that the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia exists, if inert, at this moment, and would he consider asking UEGA to look at the matter and give the Government a report and let the Opposition know? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.32) —I have no wish to say anything that is misleading, whether inadvertently or, of course, otherwise. I will certainly take that question on notice. If there is anything that I can add to the record in response to Senator Sir John Carrick's question, I will do so. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.32) —I had wanted to turn to another subject, but in view of some of the comments that Senator Evans has just made in relation to Senator Sir John Carrick's remarks, I must support the views that Senator Sir John Carrick has expressed and confirm that from discussions which I have had overseas with people in the enrichment business, there is clearly a very great market for and a very great interest in, continuing the project of enrichment in Australian using the centrifuge system. However there are certainly other technologies being looked at. The point is that Australia ought to be looking at those now. If there are alternatives, they ought to be looked at and not ignored, which is what the Government is doing. I wish to raise with Senator Evans a number of matters that I asked questions about at the hearing of Estimates Committee E on 18 September, in relation to the Government's policy for stage 3 of Kakadu National Park, which was the subject of a statement by the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), on 16 September. I refer for this purpose to that part of the statement which deals with the rather ramshackle policy which the Government stated in relation to stage 3. The Government drew a very clear distinction between the policies it was going to proceed with in relation to stages 1 and 2-those, of course, are a matter of ongoing debate which I do not wish to raise now-and stage 3. In relation to stage 3, on 16 September the Government announced an in principle decision to extend the park to stage 3 and to extend it into undefined areas of the pastoral leases of Gimbat and Goodparla and at the same time announced that it would allow the Coronation Hill mine to proceed and that that would be excised from any area that may be declared stage 3 of the park. The Government was quite unspecific as to whether it meant the whole of these pastoral leases or a portion of them, and if it is only a portion, what portion. This all had to be the subject of subsequent decision by the Government, but the Government did commit itself to one firm proposition, namely, that an assessment of the mineral potential of stage 3 would be made prior to any final decision of the Caucus. The Ministers, on behalf of the Government, said in that statement that the assessment of mineral resources would be done by the Bureau of Mineral Resources and with an unspecified form of involvement by the private mining industry. When I asked for some more specifics on that at the Estimates Committee hearing on 18 September, Senator Evans said: . . . there will be further assessment over an appropriate period in the future, again conducted by a combination of BMR geologists doing their own research and a probably greater quantitative involvement of the private sector pursuing exploration licences in the ordinary way, some of which licences or leases would need to be newly granted because existing lease and licence interests do not by any means cover at the moment the area of real mineral potential in the stage 3 area. It immediately emerged, not from any information that Senator Evans gave the Committee, but from evidence that was given by an officer of his Department of Resources and Energy, Mr Ryan, and indeed it has emerged at previous hearings of this Estimates Committee, that there were some very considerable doubts and difficulties about the legal status of almost all the private mining titles, whether to mine or to explore in the pastoral leases of Gimbat and Goodparla stations. I think somewhat to the chagrin, or perhaps even to the surprise, of Senator Evans Mr Ryan made it quite clear that this would be quite a long process and would probably have to be resolved in the courts. But of course the cavalier instincts of Senator Evans immediately came to the fore and he mounted his white charger and said: `We do not need to worry about it, we will fix all these things up'. He said that in his day legal problems were easily resolvable. When I asked him in what period of time did he foresee that happening, he replied: `I imagine it will be a matter of a few weeks, barring unforeseen circumstances'. Something like nine or 10 weeks have passed since then and we are now at the end of November. I want to know what the present state of play is. Has the Government resolved these problems? If so, in what way and to what extent will the private mining industry be able to participate in a proper assessment of the mineral potential of stage 3 before a decision is made about the proclamation of a national park in any portion of these pastoral leases? I would also like to know whether the Bureau of Mineral Resources geologists have got on with the job and made any further assessment. Of course, the reality is that the only way there can be a proper assessment of the mineral potential of this region is by traditional exploration by the private mining industry. In view of recent events, I must say that I am also somewhat concerned about whether the Government really does intend to involve the private mining industry or give it the opportunity to play any part at all in the assessment of stage 3. Events have moved quite remarkably against the private mining industry in recent days. When I asked Senator Evans a question in the Senate yesterday, he said that all will be revealed by the Government in the next couple of weeks. He failed to give me any assurance that the policy of the Government which was laid down on 18 September is still the policy or to say whether changes are being made to it. Furthermore, a Bill to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act was introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr Cohen this morning. That will give effect to the no mining in Kakadu National Park policy announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Senator Evans the other day. It will mean no mining, no exploration and no compensation for those who have already been engaged in mining the areas of stage 1 and 2. It would appear that the legislation will apply to stage 3 when it is proclaimed. I would like to know whether that is the intention of the Government. On the face of the Bill, that seems to be the intention. But I suppose that the Government could make some exceptions if it were really genuine about the policy of allowing and indeed encouraging the private mining sector to participate in the exploration of stage 3. It is not just a matter of expunging existing titles or cutting off any prospect of applications for mining titles in the case of stage 3, as has been done in such a peremptory and arbitrary manner for stages 1 and 2. As Senator Evans pointed out at the Estimates Committee E hearings, if the mining industry is to play any part in the assessment of stage 3, new exploration licences have to be given. It is a matter of giving new licences in the area, not expunging licences as this legislation proposes. If the Government is to carry out its stated policy that there will not be any further proclamation of stage 3 until that has been done, I would be most intrigued to know how it proposes to go ahead with that policy or whether that policy has been changed again since 18 September. Furthermore, we have had statements, I think, from Senator Evans but certainly from the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, that, now that the nomination of stage 2 has been withdrawn and will be resubmitted next year, a portion of stage 3, or the pastoral leases that are potentially part of stage 3, will be included in the nomination for world heritage listing. So that now seems to be utter confusion about the rights of the private mining industry in stage 3. There seem to have been a considerable number of events that would throw grave doubt upon what Senator Evans said on 18 September. I wonder whether he is prepared to throw any further light on this matter. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.44) —As we all know, there has been a considerable rush of events since mid-September on the issue of mining in Kakadu National Park as it affects not only stage 3 but also stage 1 and more particularly stage 2. That rush of events has somewhat prolonged the duration of the Government's consideration of these matters beyond what was my expectation when I responded to Estimates Committee E in September. Nonetheless, what I said yesterday remains the case. I expect Cabinet to consider this matter finally in the next two weeks or so, after which I would expect a very full statement to be made setting out our position on all the various matters that Senator Durack has raised. I do not want to go into the detail of that at this stage except to say that the policy for stage 3 is evolving broadly along the lines that I indicated to the Estimates Committee. I do not resile from anything that I said to the Committee on 18 September or at the Press conference at the time of the decision on stages 1 and 2 a day or two earlier. Beyond that, honourable senators will appreciate that, as much as oppositions can get frustrated from time to time from not being in on the action, making the decisions and participating in the process of consultation with all the relevant interests and weighing and balancing those interests, the reality is that the decision-making process ultimately has to be one for government. While that decision-making process is being finalised, there is necessarily a limit to what one can properly put on the public record. I repeat that it is certainly my hope, and I believe that it will be realised, that within the next couple of weeks or so the matter will be finally resolved, at least in terms of describing the basic parameters of the policy. There may be some further details to be filled in. An announcement will then be made. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.46) —I want to follow this up further with the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans. I am not so much frustrated by the fact that, as he said, I am not in there making the decisions. What I am utterly frustrated by, and so is the mining industry, are the completely confused signals about the decision-making process that we are receiving from Senator Evans. He told Estimates Committee E that the problems with the mining titles would be all fixed up in a few weeks. Has anything been done by the Government in the space of the last nine or 10 weeks to fix up those titles? There seem to be indications that there will be a considerable change in decision-making. If, as Senator Evans has said, there is still to be some role for the private sector to play in this area, the Government should have been getting on with cleaning up the mess that the officer, Mr Ryan, identified very clearly to the Committee. Senator Evans cannot get out of it by simply saying that the Government is going through a difficult decision-making process and he will let us know when it is completed. At that Committee he indicated that something would be done within a few weeks about the mess with the mining titles. A further mess and problem that was revealed by Senator Evans related to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. If the Government's plans are to resume the two pastoral leases, they will be open to claim by Aboriginal communities under that Act. I raised that with Senator Evans on 18 September and asked him whether this would be another problem that would confront the private mining industry, given the notorious delays that have occurred in coming to agreements with land councils under the existing Act. Senator Evans delivered a totally misleading answer. He said: We hope-- maybe he can get out of it under the phrase `We hope'- and expect legislation to be introduced which will clarify many of the ground rules governing the acquisition of mineral interests on Aboriginal land and include time frames within which negotiations are to be accomplished, with arbitral provisions at the end of those time frames if agreement cannot be reached. Having said that on 18 September, the Government's amendments to the Aboriginal land rights legislation have been introduced into the Parliament. Senator Evans foreshadowed that this legislation would deal with the problem which he accepted existed when I raised it. The legislation does not address the problem at all. I do not know whether the Government is ever going to address this problem. Probably it will not. It is certainly not addressing it in the sort of time frame we were discussing on 18 September and which we are discussing now. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.50) — There is not a great deal I can add. The Aboriginal land rights legislation does not address a number of the issues we have talked about now for a very long time with the mining industry and others. That is still very much on the agenda. At the time of the introduction of the legislation Mr Holding announced that because of the difficulty in reaching some sort of agreement between relevant interests or striking appropriate compromises we wanted to defer the period of consultation on land rights regime issues as they affected mining and that that part of the legislative package would be picked up in the new year. That remains the case. I remain hopeful that we will get a sensible code in existence and not have to limp along with the inadequacies of the Fraser land rights legislation for the Northern Territory. As to the allegedly confusing signals being sent out to the mining industry as a result of the protracted process of finding an appropriate regime for stage 3, I do not think the mining industry that I deal with in this respect is very confused. Senator Durack —They didn't believe you about Coronation Hill. Senator GARETH EVANS —I spent plenty of time talking with Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, which is the primary leasehold interest in that area, including the Coronation Hill deposit itself. I spent plenty of time talking to the key people in the Australian Mining Industry Council on this subject as recently as a couple of days ago. I think they are well aware of the complexity of this issue and are not placing any extravagant pressure on the Government at all. They want a correct decision. They want a sensible decision. They do not, unlike Senator Durack, it seems, want a hasty decision. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.53) —We have now reached a very disappointing situation. It had been hoped that, despite changing Government policy, exploration and mining would have been able to continue to some degree in Kakadu National Park. We thought that some common sense eventually would have come forth. But we now seem to be sliding into oblivion. This is a very big blow to the Territory. I do not have to go over the words of my colleague Senator Durack, who has spoken very ably on the matter. Mining would have brought considerable revenue to the Northern Territory. It would have allowed the Territory to stand on its feet more. After all, the Federal Government is always accusing the Northern Territory of being too mendicant. How can it be but mendicant when the industries of the Northern Territory cannot be developed? The matter goes beyond the mining companies. It also concerns the Aboriginal people who have clearly indicated their wish to become less reliant on the Government and to be able to make their way in the life of the Northern Territory, to be able to stand on their feet more. The way the decisions are going, they will have to keep living on handouts from the Federal Government. It is all very disappointing. We have discussed the matter of Kakadu often. Mining interests and the preservation of our national resources and heritage can live together. Multi-use is feasible, as we have seen in regard to Jabiru, Ranger and in other places. Mining in Kakadu now involves less than 2 per cent of the land area. This morning we were discussing this very subject in our consideration of the estimates of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. I would like to repeat what I said then because it is certainly pertinent to the debate that is taking place now on the estimates for the Department of Resources and Energy. I said then that the issue of the status of mining companies holding interests in Kakadu had been raised in estimates debates and that conflicting views had been expressed as to the rights of those interest holders. I note that yesterday in Question Time the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), in answer to a question I asked him, emphatically stated that no compensation would be paid to mining companies who in the past had been assured by former Labor Ministers in the Whitlam Government that they would be allowed to explore and develop their interests. That is my understanding of what the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said not so long ago. Given that the Minister is so certain that no compensation will be paid, I assume that he bases his view on some solid legal opinion to the effect that these mining companies have no right to compensation. I said this prior to the introduction of legislation in the other place amending the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act. The proposed amendments have now been circulated. I asked the Minister to say whether the Government would be equally intransigent in the matter of compensating Aboriginal communities or organisations which have entered into agreements with mining companies-agreements which, incidentally, have been approved by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). Amending legislation has now been introduced into the other place. No doubt it will eventually be forced through the other place and will come to the Senate. On the basis of experience, it appears that the Australian Democrats will support the Government to ensure that the legislation is passed. The amendments purport to prohibit mining in any part of Kakadu National Park. I note that there is an amendment providing that, notwithstanding any law of the Commonwealth or of the Northern Territory, no compensation is liable to be paid by the Commonwealth by reason of the enactment of the amendments. It is quite obvious that the Government does not need any legal opinion. It is now bringing in legislation which will hit the mining companies, which have made vast investments-- Senator Gareth Evans —Madam Chair, on a point of order: We are getting into the territory of discussing matters presently before the Parliament in legislative form. I know that traditionally there is lot of latitude in estimates debate, but I suggest that it is getting out of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —I ask Senator Kilgariff to keep the Minister's remarks in mind. Senator KILGARIFF —Yes, Madam Chair. The Government wants everything its own way. It seems fairly clear from the incorporation of this provision that the Federal Government is well aware that mining companies which have had interests in Kakadu for a number of years-mining companies which have spent millions of dollars in exploration and which have been given undertakings, notably by Ministers in the Whitlam Government that they would be permitted to explore and develop those interests-would be entitled to compensation in respect of actual and, quite possibly, prospective losses. I am sure that this is not the end of the debate on the matter, but in respect of the Government's policy I ask: How does it measure up in relation to the usual situation which allows for the payment of compensation where the Federal Government resumes land in which individuals have an interest? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.00) —This is getting to the substance of the legislation which no doubt will be debated in full at a later stage. I prefer not to do that at this stage. The policy position and the constitutional position are clear. As to comparisons with other situations to which Senator Kilgariff might want to refer, I think that is something that is properly debated at another time. Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.01) —I raise at this time the matter of export controls. I know that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), in conjunction with the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), inherited the whole business of export controls, but I believe they should not look on them as being engraved in granite. I think it is appropriate that we talk about the origin of export controls, their progress and what I believe was a complete and utter waste of time for many years, not only by governments but also by companies and the industry. I think the whole effect of export controls has been to the detriment of the development of the mining industry in Australia in general and the coal industry in particular. Export controls were first introduced in 1972 by the incoming Whitlam Government and the then Minister, Mr Rex Connor. The reason for their introduction was the false allegations that emanated from certain sections of the trade union movement-not all of them-who lived in the dark ages, who were fearful of the introduction of modern equipment and who felt-- Senator Gareth Evans —Madam Chair, I must draw to your attention the fact that this is not a matter that is administered by this portfolio. It is not an area that involves any outlay in the Budget Estimates that one can point to in any line of the entire appropriations. Moreover, the honourable senator is embarking on a historical description which bears no resemblance to any current policy matter. The first two points are the relevant ones. There must be some limits in terms of the Standing Orders to what can properly be debated in the Committee stage. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that some of them have been engaging in second reading type debate. We are dealing with the Appropriation Bills and examining details of the Estimates. I ask honourable senators to relate their remarks specifically to the Estimates of this Department. Senator PARER —Thank you, Madam Temporary Chairman. The point that I am making relates to more than just export controls, which have an effect, a cost, directly and indirectly on both the Department of Resources and Energy and the industry, an industry which I believe is vital to this country. I refer Senator Evans to an answer he gave to me in Question Time a couple of days ago about the consideration being given by him and his Government to the feasibility of establishing a national coal authority. The Minister made it clear that there was a difference between a national coal marketing authority performing functions along the lines of those performed by the Australian Wheat Board, and what the proposed coal authority could or could not do. I think it is important that I refer to the basis for the continuation of what I believe is an archaic practice which was wrong in its initial implementation. People tried to make it work. I say that quite seriously. People in the industry tried desperately to make it work, not only in the period of the Whitlam Government but also through the days of the Fraser-Anthony Government. Its effect was actually detrimental to the progress of the mining industry in general and the coal mining industry in particular. It involved interference from the Government and the bureaucracy, and to what end? The existence of these controls, in which Senator Evans certainly has a lot of interest, did not, even in one instance, add one cent to the price that we obtained in Australia for our raw materials, particularly coal. In fact there is evidence, and many examples can be given, of mines which did not proceed because of the existence of export controls. Markets were lost and customers went elsewhere. They could not be bothered with the bureaucracy and all the nonsense that went on. More important were the interminable meetings that companies and the industry had prior to meeting with government. What did they achieve? They achieved absolutely nothing. Now the sub-committee on coal of the Caucus resources and trade committee is recommending the introduction of a national coal authority. A national coal authority smacks of a national coal board. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Townley) —Order! Senator Parer seems to be making a speech in a second reading debate rather than questioning a particular line of the Estimates. To which line is he relating? Senator PARER —Perhaps I will come to the matter more directly. Senator Evans is aware of the whole problem. I will summarise it and ask him a question. Senator Evans will be aware of the cost of export controls not only to the industry but also to his Department and the Department of Trade. He is aware of the fact that there are conflicting views as to whether these things should go ahead. I wish to ask him whether he recognises that the controls are not working, that they are an enormous cost to this country and are detrimental to industry. Why does he not grasp the nettle and suggest to the Government that it do away with the whole gamut of export controls? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.08) —Senator Parer invites me to engage in a long debate on a matter which has nothing to do with the Estimates, as the Temporary Chairman has rightly pointed out. I simply say that I do not accept that export controls have not worked in the past or that they are not working in their present form. It was the case that as the coal export market grew so much larger-about 42 countries are now involved and innumerable different grades and types of coal-it became exceedingly difficult for the Department of Trade to continue administering those controls in the two-tier way which had previously operated with prior approval of parameters and a residual power at the end of the day to approve the final settlement. That two-tier system has been hauled back to a one-tier system. A reserve power is retained to refuse approval in particular cases. The proof of the pudding in justification for the retention of the system has already been in the eating in the sense that, as was announced by Mr Dawkins a couple of weeks ago, in the first two or three weeks of the operation of the new system two contracts referred to him which he did not find able to accept were referred back to the company in question. That resulted in a significant increase in the price obtained by the company. So what could have been a situation of leading the market down was averted. There are other circumstances in which we believe these controls continue to be justified. They have to be exercised sensitively and with due regard to market realities-I fully acknowledge that-but there are a lot of people in the coal industry, of whom Senator Parer no doubt will be aware, who do not have quite the same robust attitude to those controls as do the Utah Development Co. and some of the Bowen Basin earth movers, for good reason in terms of the way in which the industry has operated in the past. This has been a long debate. I am trying to respond in a way which does not encourage honourable senators to further excesses, but let us face it, it is now 27 November. We were thrown out of office on 11 November 1975 because the Government and administration of the nation was imperilled if we did not get the Estimates through, it was alleged. It is becoming absolutely absurd to have a rerun in the full chamber of the debates that we had-under sufferance sure, but nonetheless we had-in the Estimates committees themselves. Back in the chamber, in the Committee of the Whole, can we please, Mr Temporary Chairman, confine ourselves as far as possible to issues that have been thrown up in the reports of the committees themselves. As we all know, that was the original rationale for retaining the full Estimates committee debate in the Senate, even though we have already had it in the committee rooms around the Parliament. I believe that if we proceed on that basis we really will give ourselves some chance of getting some legislation through before Christmas. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Townley) —I agree with the Minister that we should relate comments to particular lines of expenditure and not just global issues. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.12) —I wish to deal with a specific line relating to national mapping, but before I do I think there is a need for me to respond to what the Minister has just said. I remind him that he has denied honourable senators an appropriate Budget debate. There has not been a Budget debate here this session because the Government has other priorities. It has preferred to bring forth other legislation rather than to have these Appropriation Bills debated straightforwardly. I will not be lectured to by Senator Evans on such a phoney basis. I must say, I accept the Temporary Chairman's point about our making second reading debate speeches, but when this Governments sets out to limit and prohibit the capacity of honourable senators to undertake such speeches in a far more appropriate way than by doing it, if you like, by subterfuge in this kind of debate-- Senator Gareth Evans —Thank you for your acknowledgment. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I acknowledge the Minister's point; I am just saying that his point is appallingly made and that I am astounded that he has the hide to make it in the dreadful circumstances that he himself has created. Senator Gareth Evans —Synthetic indignation has always been your forte. You do it very well. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I notice that the Minister does not go to the burden of whether it is accurate or not. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! I think it would help the Committee if we stuck to particular lines of reference. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr Temporary Chairman, I simply was seeking to prevent an unchallenged nonsensical statement remaining in the record. Now I want to deal with the question of national mapping. Senator MacGibbon quite properly raised questions in the Senate Estimates committee hearings relating to this matter and sought some sort of answer to a question about the extent to which there was, if you like, duplication of mapping expenditure between governments and asked what was the total amount of expenditure by governmental mapping authorities. The question was taken on notice. Subsequently we have been advised as follows: The Division of National Mapping is unable to supply details on the cost to the Australian public of all Commonwealth and State mapping agencies. The Director of National Mapping chairs the National Mapping Council which co-ordinates mapping programs but does not monitor funds of members. It seems extraordinary that we cannot get this kind of information. Certainly for three States the information was provided and obviously very large amounts are involved, something like $20m for Queensland, $14m on surveying and mapping for the Commonwealth, along with another $2m for the Australian Landsat Station, another $2m for Tasmania with 80 officers and $10m for South Australia with 327 officers. The point made at the beginning of the response from the Division of National Mapping is this: It is estimated that surveying and mapping in Australia is a $1,000 million a year industry which employs almost 20,000 people in the public and private sectors. In those circumstances I think it is reasonable to ask: What is the capacity of the Commonwealth to find out what public moneys in total are being spent? To what extent is there duplication between Commonwealth to find out what public moneys in total are being spent? To what extent is there duplication between Commonwealth and State instrumentalities? What action is the Government taking to eliminate any overlapping of governmental services in this area? Why could not the Commonwealth tell us what the other Commonwealth mapping authorities are spending and what are their staffing numbers? For example, there is the Australian Survey Office, the Australian hydrographer, the Royal Australian Survey Corps. Does the Government know what those figures are, and what is the Government doing about it? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.16) —Senator Michael Baume may or may not be pleased to know that I agree with him that this area is probably the last great frontier of irrationality in Australian public administration. I share his despair at the inability of the various Commonwealth agencies, let alone everybody else, to get their act together over recent years. It has been the subject of a great deal of attention over recent years and a great deal of wrangling. It has been the product, finally, of the Richardson report in the last few months, which is presently the subject of active consideration by my Department and the Department of Defence in particular as the two departments most immediately concerned. I would like to hope that there will be some rational resolution of this matter and a more rational allocation of both manpower and capital in the future than there manifestly has been in the past. The National Mapping Council, chaired by Mr Veenstra, the Director of the Division of National Mapping, is not a body with executive authority. It was given co-ordinating functions but, regrettably, not the executive authority to go with it. As a result it has had difficulty in extracting information or exercising the sort of authority that is needed to be an effective co-ordinator as distinct from spectator. I frankly acknowledge that there are problems. I do not gloss over them. I do not pretend otherwise. This needs a lot of attention and it is getting a lot of attention at the moment. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.18) —I would like to congratulate the Minister on the establishment of a Community Advisory Committee to assist the Ministerial Council on the Murray-Darling Basin Management. The mix of organisations chosen to have representatives on that Committee will be able to give valuable advice, while regional representatives will complete the panorama of interests concerned with the basin's resource management. I believe it is long overdue that we have this type of interaction between the policy makers, the users and the people in the area. It is particularly important to my State of South Australia, which receives the combined effluent of the whole basin and is absolutely dependent upon the Murray water for its survival. It seems very important to us that at least an interstate and inter-regional management group has been established which has the authority to take decisions and the ability to act promptly. I would like to know from the Minister, whether, as well as this, the Government is considering, in the management of the whole basin, the management of the roads, because in South Australia the river not only is a link but also divides the State. There are only five bridges along the whole length of the river within South Australia and the management of the basin obviously requires some type of co-ordination between the infrastructure that exists and is provided by the States and the Federal Government, and the river. I would also like to endorse the report of the meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council in July, which pointed out the need urgently to address the maintenance of our existing water resource assets. I believe this water resource is one of the most important assets that Australia has. It is vital that full provision is made for the maintenance of this existing asset, as well as for capital investment in new developments. This way of looking at water as a resource is extremely important. Has the Government this year fully accounted for depreciation, maintenance and renewal of existing assets in its budgetary appropriations in this area? I would like some comment from the Minister on that point. The assumed average lifetime of water industry assets currently has been put at 100 years by a group of Commonwealth State and Territory Ministers. They estimated that the water industry needed more than $400m annually for this purpose. I would like to know what steps are being taken to ensure that this level of funding is available this year and in subsequent years, so that Australia does not build up an enormous hidden debt for the future, as assets deteriorate at a great rate. This has happened in all the developed countries in the world because of industrial pollution and various problems that have hit waterways and underground resources. I believe that the experience in Britain, Europe and the United States of America is a symptom of the decay of our current civilisation. Although I commend the Minister for his activity, I seek further information on how farsighted this Government is in trying to manage that very precious resource. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.22) —I thank Senator Vigor for his enthusiastic support for the Ministerial Council on the Murray- Darling Basin Management that we have established, with its supporting network of committees, particularly the community advisory committee. Although visibly evident fruits will take some time to be borne from an initiative of this kind, it is, I think, one of the proudest initiatives of this Government and certainly one with which I have been happiest to be associated, because it has come to grips with a problem that has been endemic since Federation. It gives us heart for the first time that we will get some rational and co-ordinated response to the whole mix of problems-both water and land management problems-in the river basin area. I turn to the specifics of Senator Vigor's question. It is the case, as he will be well aware, that responsibility for water resource matters in Australia rests mainly with individual States. In the Australian Capital Territory the operation and maintenance of those facilities falls under the responsibility of the Minister for Territories. In many water authorities around Australia there is some doubt as to whether current pricing policies and accounting practices adequately provide for depreciation and asset replacement. As I indicated in a Press statement that was released following the July meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council, this is a major issue, a policy concern, which is being addressed by the Commonwealth and State members of the Council. The planning committee of the Council has identified this issue as a major priority in its current work program, with a view to producing a full report to the Council at its June 1987 meeting. Honourable senators would also be aware of the discussion paper entitled `Proposed Policy Guidelines for Statutory Authorities and Government Business Enterprises' which my colleague the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) tabled in the Senate in June 1986, which addresses the question of appropriate accounting practices for public authorities. Although consideration is still being given to the discussion paper, it does give some indication of the direction in which the Government wishes to move. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Attorney-General's Department Proposed expenditure, $247,499,000. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.25) —I take up a recent Press release which expressed concern about the delay in the tabling of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material. In August 1984 the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) said that the question of perverse material becoming accessible to children had been studied by the Attorney-General. Mr Young mentioned that in the United States and the United Kingdom it had taken more than three years to deliver findings on the broad general issues. Mr Young stated: We cannot wait that length of time. By focusing on specific targets, we hope that the Joint Committee will be able to reach useful conclusions within a time-frame consistent with careful deliberation and receipt of both scientific research and properly argued submissions from various community groups. I understand that quite a deal of evidence has been tendered about the exposure of children to R-rated material. Could we have some indication from the Government as to whether it will move on any area before the Committee report is tabled? For instance, would it be possible to have separate display areas for R-rated material and more effective labelling requirements to warn of the unsuitability for children of some of this material? Could this be established initially in the Australian Capital Territory as a test area? It might help to push the other States to take the same action-if it is a State-Commonwealth disputed area-if the Australian Capital Territory had suitable legislation or ordinances to handle this matter. Other measures could be taken by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) or other Ministers. Is there any prospect of government action within the next six months? I have had a number of submissions from groups such as the Australian Council for Children's Films and Television and various other groups. Some of them seem to have been stimulated by Senator Harradine's comments. Basically, it seems to be an important matter which needs some type of resolution. The delays seem to be very difficult to explain. Could the Minister give me some indication as to why there have been these delays and what type of time scale he expects for providing suitable means of controlling this type of material? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.27) —This is being considered by the Joint Select Committee on Video Material. As I understand it, it has just finished producing the first part of its report. I am not sure when it will actually be tabled. The Government is simply awaiting that report before moving further in regard to any of the various matters which people keep wanting to raise on this subject. That is the position which we foreshadowed a considerable time ago. Accordingly, the Parliament is in the position of determining the Executive Government timetable. If Senator Vigor wants to move things along a bit faster, I suggest that he give his colleagues on the Committee a nudge. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure, $278,939,000. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.28) —During the Estimates committee hearing, when we considered the estimates for the Department of the Special Minister of State, a number of questions were asked to clarify the controversy which has developed in the past over a Remuneration Tribunal decision as to the definition of principal place of residence. I asked a number of questions and received a number of answers. The picture that emerged was that the officer concerned indicated that there had been no change in the approach to the meaning of the definition of a principal place of residence. I quote from page 1017 of the Hansard of 26 September. Mr O'Neil said: There has not been a change in the definition of `principal place of residence'. I recall that Mr Justice Mahoney was asked to assist on this question. His definition of a principal place of residence is that given in the House of Representatives Hansard which says: . . . the question of whether a particular place is the principal place of residence must be determined according to the ordinary meaning of the term and the facts of the particular case. I understand that that applied during 1982 and prior to that. There has been no change in the definition of `principal place of residence' in respect of the arrangements now. That definition is the ordinary meaning of the words. It is up to the Minister, as required by the Remuneration Tribunal, to nominate that to the Special Minister of State. In 1982 the Fraser Government asked the Remuneration Tribunal to give a definition. The information supplied to the Senate reads as follows: The then Government announced in December 1982 that it had, after further considering the letter from the Chairman, decided that Ministers should nominate as their principal place of residence for travelling allowance purposes the place at which they resided for most of the time or where their family was normally based. Where these places did not coincide, Ministers were required to nominate that place where they resided when not engaged on official business. That is from the Senate Hansard, pages 3091 and 3092. I draw attention to the definition, which is that the principal place of residence is where the Minister resided for most of the time or where his family was normally based. Following a series of questions it became clear that a further decision was made by the Hawke Cabinet in November 1983. I sought to determine whether there had been any change in the definition of the place of residence by that decision. There was some difficulty in getting the information on this. The evidence now supplied to us says this: The Cabinet made a decision in November 1983 in relation to the payment of travelling allowances to Ministers. The decision was circulated to all Ministers on 10 November 1983. Cabinet records and deliberations are confidential to the government which creates them. The Prime Minister on 23 September 1986 did, however, provide information on the decision in the following terms: `The substance of the Cabinet decision was that as a guidance for Ministers it would be appropriate for Ministers who also maintained residence in Canberra, when absent from the principal place of residence in their home States for extended periods on official business in Canberra, to claim the appropriate travelling allowance only for the week days involved'. It is clear from the evidence provided that there has been no change in the definition of `principal place of residence', that being where the Minister mostly resided or where his family was, where his children went to school. That has not changed in any way. The Cabinet decision in November 1983 which had been represented as changing the situation did nothing of the sort. The Cabinet decision in November 1983 did not change the definition-it left it quite clear-but it said that when the Minister was absent from that principal place of residence and in Canberra he should not claim for weekends. There was no change to the specifics. The test is very simple indeed. The test is: Where does a Minister normally reside? Where does his family live? Where do his children go to school? If the Minister normally resides in Canberra, his family is here and his children go to school here, his principal place of residence is in Canberra and clearly he must not claim travelling allowance for time spent in Canberra. The revelation of this information completely refutes all the arguments that were put up in another place in defence of a particular application for travelling allowance. The Department is emphatic that the test has not changed. The Fraser Government test which I announced in this chamber remains. On the admission of the Government and the Department, the only change is that a Minister away from his principal place of residence and living in Canberra on duty must not claim travel allowance for weekends. That completely destroys the arguments that were put up by the Government in the other place. Clearly, that presents the guidelines which all Ministers should observe for the future. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.36) —Very briefly on the same topic, I should like to underline what Senator Sir John Carrick has just said and to point out one element of the December 1982 letter to which Senator Sir John Carrick referred which dealt with providing for allowance purposes that the principal place of residence was the place at which a Minister resides for most of the time or where his family was normally based. Where these places did not coincide Ministers were required to nominate that place where they resided when not engaged on official business. That is quite clear and uncomplicated. They were required to nominate that place where they reside when not engaged on official business. As Senator Sir John Carrick said, nothing has happened since then to change that clear statement-certainly nothing that has been released by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and certainly nothing contained in his letter of 17 September 1986. Clear evidence of where a Minister resides when not engaged on official business, presumably, would be the place to which he returns having completed official business. In respect of the Minister to whom Senator Sir John Carrick referred, who is of course the Treasurer (Mr Keating), one has to look only at the destination of VIP flights at weekends to see where the Treasurer resides when not engaged on official business. I would not need a lot of convincing that late on Friday or Saturday night the Treasurer was getting a VIP plane back to Canberra to do official business. It is evident that he was returning to where he resided when not engaged on official business. In other words, he was entitled to get a VIP flight back to Canberra if he was returning home from official business; he would not be entitled to a VIP flight simply to come to Canberra, not on official business. That would be an improper use of those flights. The simple situation is that by his use of the VIP flights he has underlined the fact that Canberra is where he resides when not engaged on official business and therefore that is his effective home base-in other words, he has been wrongly stating his place of residence-or he has been wrongly using VIP flights. He cannot have it both ways. I stress that this matter needs appropriate clarification. The Government has not clarified the position one bit in its letter to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). It has avoided the reality. These rules would also affect office-holders in the Opposition. It failed to tell office-holders in the Opposition there was such a change at the time the so-called change was made. Opposition office-holders, as I understand it, do not know whether they are required to respond in terms of the December 1982 letter or whether those terms have changed. This affects office holders in the Opposition. The Government has to make up its mind. I stress that the letter sent by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition does not, to my mind, clearly establish whether the criterion set in December 1982 still stands in relation to Ministers being required to nominate that place where they resided when not engaged in official business. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.40) —It is clear that the definition offered originally by Mr Justice Mahoney is essentially the definition that has remained constant throughout this entire period-that is to say, the question of whether a particular place is a principal place of residence must be determined according to the ordinary meaning of the term and the facts of the particular case. What has tended to vary over time is the way in which that broad common law description has been interpreted and applied by different governments and by different Ministers within different governments. Senator Archer —It has always been interpreted the same way but applied differently. Senator GARETH EVANS —If we are arguing about semantics, the concept is `determined according to the ordinary meaning of the term and facts of the particular case'. People's perception as to what the ordinary meaning is will no doubt vary depending on what the particular facts are. It is a constant definition but a variable application. I think that is as precisely as I can define it. Certainly there is no universality of acceptance of what Senator Sir John Carrick regards as the essence of the definition; that is to say, the place where a person's family lives, where his kids go to school and where the person normally lives, whatever that means. That is Senator Sir John Carrick's contribution to the content of it. Senator Sir John Carrick —No, it is not. It is the previous Government's and it says that there is no change. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am explaining the situation as I understand it. Senator Sir John Carrick has had his go. I am doing my best to introduce some coherence into what has been, increasingly, I am afraid, incoherent debate. I am making the point that there are all sorts of considerations that could be relevant other than where one's children go to school. It might be relevant that one is maintaining a house, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has, which is not rented out to anyone else, which is available for occupancy but which happens to be going through a period of extended renovation. I suppose it would be very difficult to argue that a place was one's principal place of residence if it was being physically occupied by other people but that, combined with other considerations, is something that has led the Treasurer to take the view that that is and continues to be his principal place of residence. There have been, of course, notorious instances over the years where people have made decisions of this kind and other people have been critical of them. I can think, in particular, of some of the nominations of a principal residence that were made by Ministers in the previous Government, notwithstanding that they maintained family residences in Canberra. Senator Michael Baume —Not subsequent to December 1982 when the criteria were set out. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am talking about Mr Anthony so nominating for Murwillumbah, Mr Sinclair nominating for Bendemeer in New South Wales-I do not know how much time he spent there-Mr Nixon nominating for Orbost, Mr Hunt nominating for Moree and, of course, Mr Street nominating his holiday home at Barwon Heads as his principal place of residence. We sought to rationalise the situation when we came into office, bearing in mind the extraordinary and almost unique difficulties that are associated with being a Minister in any government, which is common to all governments, and particularly with occupying the position of Treasurer, which is so much more conspicuous and so much more the subject of constant pressure than is perhaps the case for a number of other Ministers. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) indicated in his letter of 23 September which Senator Sir John Carrick has quoted from, the Government struck a ground rule for this which sought to have some regard to the reality of the necessity for an almost constant presence of some Ministers in Canberra, combined with their desire to maintain, for the sake of their sanity and certainly for their future, substantial residences elsewhere. The basis on which the ground rule was struck, for better or worse, was as Senator Sir John Carrick has described. Senator Sir John Carrick —Only applying to weekends and nothing else. Senator GARETH EVANS —Only applying to weekends; that a claim could be made in respect of-- Senator Sir John Carrick —And no change regarding the past, except weekends? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Sir John Carrick has read out the way the ground rule has been applied. It has been observed religiously by the Treasurer and in accordance not with some private decision of his own but with a decision reached by the Government seeking to impose some kind of order into a situation which is almost, by definition, difficult to-- Senator Michael Baume —But not in accordance with the December 1982 guidelines. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know what happened after the December 1982 guidelines because Senator Michael Baume was not around very long thereafter. The only change that I am aware of after those 1982 guidelines were promulgated is that the Hon. Ralph Hunt changed his nomination for his home base from Moree to Collarenebri. I am not aware-I would be delighted if Senator Sir John Carrick could inform me otherwise-whether any of the other Ministers I mentioned before changed their somewhat problematic, if I might so delicately describe it, home bases to their Canberra family residences after the decision in December 1982. I would be very surprised if his information is any different from mine. What we need to realise is that there is an inherent flexibility and an inherent uncertainty about the proper scope of application of this concept of principal place of residence. The decision made in 1983, on its face, was directed to Ministers and was regarded as applicable only to Ministers. It was not intended to apply to other office bearers. They were left to make the decision themselves without this restrictive guidance that the Commonwealth Cabinet imposed upon its own Ministers. I think that is about as much as I can usefully say. There may well be a case for everyone sitting down in a calm atmosphere at some stage, ceasing to score political points, successfully or other- wise, trying once and for all to get some rationality into this which would be generally accepted, recognising the extraordinary and unique difficulties under which Ministers of the Crown operate and the fact that their jobs are not nine to five jobs, five days a week, but seven days a week jobs whether we like it or not. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.48) —I remind the Minister that if he had listened attentively to what I said he would know that I said I was not seeking to score political points at all. Whether somebody on one side of the chamber or the other has abused this is of no concern to me. What I rose to do was to say what the Government had provided by way of evidence to the Estimates Committee and to this Committee of the Whole, not what I invented at all. The Government said that the judge made a decision and that subsequent to that the government of the day made a specific definition of a principal place of residence. The Department of Special Minister of State went on to say, in a document authorised by the Government, that there had been no change in that definition. The definition that stands is the definition of December 1982 which says that Ministers should nominate as their principal place of residence for travelling allowance purposes the place at which they resided for most of the time or where their family was normally based. That is not my invention; that is the standing decision which is unchanged. The Minister seeks to suggest that some change was made by the Cabinet decision in November 1983. The fact is that the only decision that was made then was that if one is away from one's principal place of residence and one is in Canberra, one should not claim for weekends. That is quite different. It says that if one is away from one's principal place of residence and one is in Canberra, one should not claim for weekends. The Minister said that there ought to be clarification of this. I remind him where we stand on this. On the evidence I have in my hands that the Government has provided to this Committee-not the evidence of any words of mine-there has been no change at all in the Mahoney definition or in the December 1982 definition. The only change had nothing to do with the principal place of residence; it was only that if one was away from that principal place of residence, one should not claim weekends in Canberra. I simply raise this matter, not to score points but to draw to the attention of the Minister that this is in direct conflict with what was said in a debate in the other place. Indeed, I impress upon the Minister that it would be a darn good thing if in fact this matter were specifically clarified so that all members of this and the other place know where they stood. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.50) —I do not disagree with the last point that was made but what I do take issue with-and perhaps I could have made this point more clearly before-is that we do not accept that there was any binding definition given at the end of 1982 that should be regarded as having any particular significance as far as we were concerned. It was made, as I understand it, by the Executive Government. Senator Sir John Carrick —When did you reject it? When did you change it? When did you announce its change? Senator GARETH EVANS —We take our guidance on these matters from the Remuneration Tribunal because the Remuneration Tribunal fixes the language of the principal place of residence which we are then obliged to apply. In November 1982 guidance was sought, as I understand, from the Remuneration Tribunal. The Tribunal came back with a letter which did not talk in terms of the specific single criterion which the honourable senator identified about place where family happened to be. Rather, the Tribunal came back with a quite lengthy description, the last and most pertinent point of which is the following: In the end, the question whether a particular place is the principal place of residence must be determined according to the ordinary meaning of the term and the facts of the particular case. That is to say, the common law description that I referred to before that was used by the officer of the Department. On coming to office, noting that the Fraser Government had made some pronouncement on what this was going to mean for it, and then honouring it in terms of what it seems a batch of senior Ministers actually did by way of changing their returns, and noting that some application had been made, we sat down and had another look at it. We decided that the best thing to do, as I understand it, was to operate on the basis of the Mahoney principle of letting people decide for themselves what their principal place of residence would be, bearing in mind that a number of factors could be relevant in determining what that was, but ensuring that there could be no undue burden on the taxpayer, if you like, by adding the additional reference to the weekend business, that where people were in Canberra for a weekend they should not claim in respect of that. So I am not disputing the bottom line in what Senator Sir John Carrick is saying, that there is an element still of unsatisfactory uncertainty about all this, and I think it would be useful if we could sit down in a non-partisan way and try to work out once and for all some guidelines which take account of all the various circumstances that people confront, take account of the realities of doing these appallingly burdensome and time-consuming jobs which are so destructive of family life, and all the rest of it, and try to work out some ground rules which are acceptable to those of us who are professionally caught up in them but which at the same time are acceptable to the community as a whole and set out in terms which perhaps are less opaque than the kind of language that the Remuneration Tribunal has offered us in its contributions in the past. I think the sooner we accept that-and that goes for an awful lot of other things about our salaries and conditions too, but we will not get into that on this occasion-rather than, albeit, only impliedly in some instances but still trying to score the odd point en passant in this sort of exercise, and get on with the business of coming to grips with rational criteria, the better we will all be. Senator SIR JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.54) —I just wish to ask three simple questions. First, when, if ever, did the Government tell the Department of the Special Minister of State that the Executive Government decision on the interpretation of the Mahoney ruling had been changed? I remind the Minister that I was seeking to find whether the Department had ever had such instructions. It is quite clear that no instructions were given. Secondly, when did the Government tell the Parliament that the Executive Government decision of December 1982 had changed? Thirdly, if neither of those advices was given, is it not a reasonable presumption that the December 1982 situation prevails, as in fact the evidence before us from the Department suggests? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.55) —I will need to take those questions on notice. I think there is no normal presumption that decisions that governments make in the application of particular ground rules to themselves carry over necessarily to subsequent governments. I am not at all sure that one should apply any presumptive principle in those circumstances. It is on the assumption of such a presumption that Senator Sir John Carrick's question is premised. I am not sure that I accept the premise, but nonetheless I will see whether the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) wishes to make any special comment on it. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.56) —The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) will be pleased to know that my comments have nothing to do with Ministers but refer to the electorate offices of members of parliament. The subject I wish to raise concerns the distribution of responsibilities of members of parliament between a variety of departments. I have sensed, from talking to a large number of members, an increasing frustration about the way in which certain matters are handled. It seems that members of parliament themselves have been caught up in a massive bureaucratic minefield. A variety of people are taking pot shots at one another and the members are the people who are missing out. I would like to instance one case in which I was involved which I think explains the triviality and absurdity of what is happening. The Minister may not be aware, but the Department of the Senate is running a number of pilot programs with regard to computers. In fact, I am part of one of those programs. In an endeavour to further the aims of that program, we sought at an earlier stage, which I do not intend to go into now, to have installed a phone link between my electorate office and my office in Parliament House. However, it turned out that it was absolutely impossible for anybody to get their minds around such an exercise so that idea was dumped. A little while later I received a letter saying that my typewriters were due to be upgraded because of some obvious ruling that they were two years old, and so on. I wrote a letter in which I said that I was taking part in a trial, that I had been trying to get an extra telephone line installed and that I would be quite happy not to have the extra typewriters if instead the extra line could be installed. For the benefit of the Committee, the costings are as follows: The two typewriters that were being offered to me were costed by the Government as being in the vicinity of $900 each, and if I had gone for the more expensive models the price would have gone up. The installation of a phone would have been $190 and the annual rent would have been $198. So on that basis I would have been able to use the extra line for nine years for what it would cost me to purchase the extra typewriters. However, the department concerned advised me that that was not at all possible. The department concerned stated: While I can appreciate your desire . . . I am unable to assist you in your requests as it is outside the current entitlements. It seems to me that it is about time some rationality was brought into this exercise. Demarcation disputes may be all very well but when they involve members of parliament in such a trivial exercise and in fact end up with the expenditure of more money than is necessary to achieve the same end, I must admit that I and other members of parliament to whom I have talked get somewhat frustrated that this rather stupid exercise has to continue. I wonder whether the Minister would undertake to look at introducing some type of rationality so that requests by members for useful facilities can be acceded to if the cost to Consolidated Revenue of those facilities is less than the ones that are proposed by the bureaucrats? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.58) —I simply say that Senator Macklin's remarks seem to have some superficial plausibility, at least. I will certainly undertake to refer them to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and let him follow them up as he thinks appropriate. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.59) —I would like to ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) whether he will do what he can to see that I am provided with answers to questions which I asked officers of the Department of the Special Minister of State during Senate Estimates committee hearings, which have not been responded to and which have really been treated in a fairly cavalier way. The first one, which I guess we will get the answer to sooner or later, relates to the names of consultants and their tasks and the costs involved in 1985-86 and the forecast for 1986-87. The response to that was: The names of the consultants and their tasks are contained in an annual report which is currently in preparation-- that was back in September- and will shortly be tabled in both Houses, as required under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act. I have not seen that annual report yet. I have just been advised by the Senate Table Office that it is not yet available and I would be grateful to know when it will be. I would like to look at that report so that I can deal with the question of consultants while these debates on the Estimates are running. It is not an adequate response to a request asked during a Senate Estimates committee hearing to tell me that the information will be available when the officers get around to writing the annual report. Senate Gareth Evans-I am advised that the draft report is with the Minister at the moment, so presumably you are in the home stretch. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Thank you, Minister. In that case, it appears to me to be absolutely disgraceful that responses to questions, the information for which is sufficiently prepared to be in a draft report, is not provided to the Senate before we deal with the Estimates. It is just intolerable. What is the Minister's justification for this? I have some other questions in relation to this Department's failure to respond adequately to questions. I find it unacceptable to have a response that officers will not give honourable senators information because the officers will give a report to the Senate if and when they feel like it, which may well be after the Estimates have been dealt with. That is bureaucratic arrogance of an excessive degree, which has to be stopped. The next point I want to raise is that I asked this Department what were the cost estimates of special stationery and envelopes specifically used by senior officers and the Minister. One of the questions was how the special departmental and ministerial stationery varies from the standard stationery generally used by the Department in appearance and cost. This Department deliberately ducked answering that question and it had now better start to answer properly. It is a fair question. The answer that the Department gave simply related to the total cost for the year, which of course was nonsensical because it said that to achieve economies of scale bulk orders were placed and sufficient were ordered in 1985-86 or earlier to meet 1986-87 requirements. In other words, the officer said that the departmental cost was nil. What I had specifically asked related to the difference between the appearance and cost of ministerial and standard departmental letterheads. I imagine that the cost difference may be very substantial because the ministerial letterhead is in green ink, thermally embossed, high quality paper, and the departmental letterhead is standard departmental stationery with black ink on standard quality paper. We are entitled to an answer. I hope that the Minister will be able to encourage the bureaucracy to stop trying to stall us and to stop fooling us around by deliberately refraining from either understanding a simple question or answering it. The other matter I would like to raise relates to sick leave. I asked whether it would be possible to establish the difference between the number of days of sick leave taken by the part-time and full-time employees of the Australian Federal Police. This question has some relevance now, because since I asked it the subject has sprung up in relation to claims about the excessive level of sick leave being taken by the New South Wales police force. I do not know the rights and wrongs of that issue. All I do know is that the only response I got was that the total sick leave taken by the temporary staff approximated 2 per cent of total hours engaged and that the figure for permanent staff was not available. I would have thought that it would have been fairly easy to work out salary as against sick leave and at least have a stab at it on that basis. It seems to me to be a reasonable request and I cannot see why the Government cannot provide an answer. I mention in passing that this is of specific relevance to the Australian Federal Police because something like four times as many employees of the Australian Federal Police retire through invalidity as retire from reaching retirement age. That is getting pretty close to the record, I think, of any governmental instrumentality. The reasons for that are certainly interesting. Out of the 36 people who retired last year through invalidity, 17 retired due to depression and/or anxiety-just about half. That seems to be extraordinary. Either something is particularly wrong with the administration of the Federal Police and it is a far more demanding job than some people may have thought or something needs to be done to improve the health, and the mental health in particular, of people in the Federal Police. Another six retired due to back problems, which of course is hard to diagnose, one retired through severe stress and one with repetition strain injury. So something like 25 of the 36 retirements appear to relate to complaints that one could say are difficult to diagnose. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.06) —As to the consultants, I have already indicated that that is part of a draft report which is with the Minister. It has been indicated to me that there should be no difficulties now in extracting that information from the draft document and providing it very quickly to Senator Michael Baume. As to the stationery saga, the suggestion from my left is that it appears a page may well have been inadvertently left out from the sequencing of the material, in which case it ought to be possible very quickly, in an hour or so, or certainly by tomorrow, to provide that information which it is acknowledged provides no particular difficulty in being produced. As to the question of sick leave in the AFP, I am advised that compilation of the information sought is simply not ready. It will be provided as soon as possible. The officers in question are reeling from the verbal scourging that they have received today from Senator Michael Baume, and no doubt will be suitably responsive accordingly. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.07) —I have one short question along the lines of Senator Michael Baume's question relating to questions not being answered. These were actually raised by Senator Vigor on 23 October and they deal with the memo that was circulated to all members of parliament with regard to the transmission over telephone lines of data. He wanted to know whether anybody had ever thought of doing a cost analysis of the use of telephone lines between one's electorate office and here in terms of the transmission of data. I did a short cost analysis and discovered that it was far cheaper to send something over the computer telephone lines than it was to dictate over the phone to a person taking it down in shorthand. He asked that question on 23 October and there has been no response. I ask the Minister: Why was such a direction put out? Was such a study undertaken to find out whether it was more costly or less costly to transmit data in that way? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.08) —I am told that it is simply not the case that senators and members are forbidden to use their elec- torate office phones for such purposes. I understand that privately owned personal computers and facsimile machines have been installed in some electorate offices. Telephones have been provided in electorate officers primarily to enable voice communication with constituents and other people in connection with senators' and members' duties and responsibilities. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) approved guidelines to enable senators and members to use their telephones for data transmission at official expense, provided that additional separate telephone lines are not required. Similarly, so that an undue burden is not placed on resources available to all parliamentarians, telephone costs are monitored to ensure that they are kept within reasonable limits. So long as privately owned computers do not unduly affect the cost of the provision of telephone services to members and senators no special provision will be made. I understand that there have been no cases of excessive costs due to privately owned computers or other equipment. I am advised that a circular recently sent by the Department of the Special Minister of State to honourable senators and honourable members did not give a complete picture of the Govern- ment's policy on this matter. There it is; honourable senators can treat what I have just said as the Gospel and that that was the Old Testament which has been superseded. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.10) —I will certainly treat it as gospel, and I do not want to take up any more time but I wonder whether the Minister can get a full copy sent to honourable members and honourable senators. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.11) —Under the circumstances, and given that the readership of Senate Hansard is not high, even among our colleagues, I think that is a reasonable request. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Foreign Affairs Proposed expenditure, $1,111,670,000. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.11) —I just have a very simple and short group of questions relating to the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. The Australian Development Assistance Bureau currently distributes its funds in both bilateral aid and multilateral aid through the multilateral aid banks such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. It has been brought to my notice by groups at various meetings that ADAB has not adopted any environmental impact procedures. During the Estimates Committee hearing I asked for some guidelines on the environmental impact procedures required in aid programs and I received a very general, Yes, Minister-type answer to this question. I would like to know in more detail whether any environmental impact procedures are followed when groups such as the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and other Australian organisations are involved in foreign aid programs. Are the methodologies of environmental impact monitoring followed by these organisations? I have been extremely worried by some of the reports of certain destructive effects of bilateral projects. The projects that have been mentioned to me are the Golok River Basin project in Thailand and Malaysia, where Australian consultants have acted as advisers, the Bah Bolon River improvement and irrigation project in Indonesia, which was implemented by an Australian firm, and the NTT livestock development project in Timor. According to the people who have reported this matter to me, there is apparently no direct monitoring of environmental effects even of these bilateral programs for which ADAB is basically paying all of the bills. There is even less control where the multilateral banks are involved. The other matter that was brought to my notice was the problem of the transmigration program in Indonesia, which is having very bad effects on the Irian Jayan forest and is having an adverse impact on the native populations. There is a real problem in this area. I would like a comment from the Minister of what ADAB, the Department or the Government intends to do to make certain that we do not destroy environments in countries that we are purporting to help. Secondly, what are we doing to examine the effect on the indigenous people in those countries of our aid programs? It appears that Irian Jayan refugees in Papua New Guinea will have very little chance of returning to their homeland, which they call West Papua. What alternative arrangements is the Australian Government considering for a more permanent solution to this type of problem of settling people in that area? I have had recent visits from two very articulate gentlemen from that region who had been resettled in Sweden, which is really not a very effective solution, even though I commend the Swedes for their caring in this area. Is anything being discussed within the Pacific region to try to settle these people within the region that they are used to? This really is a problem. Will the Government consider inviting these people to stay longer in Australia so that the Papua New Guinean Government and the Australian Government, together with other Pacific nations, can find some permanent home for these displaced people in our region? We talk about refugees in other areas but we have a refugee problem right on our doorstep. Would the Government be prepared to continue to give aid, which is presently given to help Papua New Guinea, to look after these refugees in another Pacific country if a country were prepared to take them? Maybe we could use some of our economic power, some of our economic caring, to achieve that end. Alternatively, is a place being made for these refugees in Australia as part of our refugee migrant intake? I would like to know what is happening. I have two questions: Firstly, what is happening about checking or monitoring that the bilateral and multilateral aid that we are giving is not destroying the environment in the areas in which that aid is given? Secondly, what are we doing about the specific refugee problem of the people of West Papua in exile? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.18) —The environmental issues were pretty well canvassed in the Estimates committee discussion on 23 September. A number of specific projects under the multilateral auspices of the World Bank, et cetera, were the subject of reference there, and have been again by Senator Vigor today. The departmental officers were able to say only that they would seek the information in question from the agencies concerned, particularly the World Bank. They have advised the Senate, in supplementary material that has been tabled, that the information required has been sought from the World Bank. Clearly, it is not yet to hand or Senator Vigor would have been advised. As to bilateral aid arrangements, there are no general environmental guidelines in existence. But I am assured that environmental factors and related questions of social impact are taken into account along with other factors in the appraisal and evaluation of any project. It may be that there has been some insensitivity in some respects in the past in some locations. If so, I am sure that the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) will be only too happy to respond to a detailed question put on notice about any such project. The general situation is as I have described it. On the question of the border crossers from Irian Jaya, which is the terminology the Government would prefer to adopt, recognising the sovereignty in question, rather than West Papua-although we acknowledge that some people think otherwise-the basic situation is that the Government regards this as a problem properly to be resolved in the first instance as between the governments of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea with the advice and assistance, physical and otherwise, of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Australia has not yet been asked to assist in any particular way in a resettlement context so far as I am aware. We certainly have been contributing assistance-to date, something like $3m-to the UNHCR's relief efforts in Papua New Guinea. During 1986-87 we will be providing another $1m for that purpose. We acknowledge the strain that is being placed on the Papua New Guinea Budget, not to mention the difficult policy problems it is causing for that Government. We are doing our best to assist in a way that is appropriate as between sovereign governments. There is some sort of implicit suggestion, I fear, in Senator Vigor's remarks that Australia has some sort of responsibility to tear in and generally throw its weight around, gobble up refugees and settle them in Australia, or rush around the Pacific finding Melanesian or other appropriate locations for the refugees in question. We do not operate like that. It is a difficult problem but it is a problem for Papua New Guinea to solve in the first instance in the way that it wants to solve it. I know from my visits there in the last year-I have been there a couple of times-that it is doing its best to wrestle with it. Beyond that, there is not very much more I can say except that it is a situation we are certainly keeping a close and sympathetic eye upon. To the extent that we are asked to take any action in the future, we will sympathetically consider such a request from the Papua New Guinea Government. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.23) —I will be brief. I will pass on an invitation to the two leaders of the West Papuan free government in exile to visit and talk to the relevant Minister. Senator Gareth Evans —I make it clear for the record that I did not offer any such invitation. Obvious sensitivities are involved. I ask Senator Vigor not to distort what I have said. Senator VIGOR —Fair enough. It was brought to my notice by engineers who had been involved in bilateral programs that they were asked to do things which were completely against the environmental laws and customs adopted in Australia for such engineering projects. I use this opportunity to put on notice to the Government a request that this matter be investigated further. I do not believe that the Minister can answer me at this stage but I ask that the Minister approach the Department to make certain that the practices which are followed in engineering projects of an aid nature are made to conform at least with the environmental requirements we require of engineers and organisations in Australia. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.24) —I draw the Minister's attention to the hiring of works of art and questions asked in Senate Estimates committee hearings in this respect. There was a substantial increase-I think it was to $180,000-in the cost of hiring works of art by the Department. The response to my question about the method employed by the Department was that art works are leased under 3-year contracts from Artbank in Sydney with lease payments made annually based on the assessed value of the works, that on expiry of the contracts the works are revalued and the lease renewed at a new, higher rate, that Artbank had advised that the assessed value is expected to increase by approximately 18 per cent in 1986-87, which would increase expenditure to more than $180,000, and that, apart from a small number of works located in the Administrative Building in Canberra, all works of art are pos- itioned in overseas missions and heads of mission residences. In view of the increase involved, does the Department or Minister have a view as to the percentage of the capital value of the works of art which is involved in the lease payment? Is there a formula under which this $180,000 is being spent? I do not want to extend the same question to pot plants. It is not as easy to assess the capital value of a pot plant. I do not think it appreciates at the same rate as a work of art. If this kind of appreciation is going on there may be some case at least for examining whether one would save money by buying them or perhaps should stop leasing them. Another matter I raise is about the $82,492 paid last year by the Department to former Prime Minister Whitlam in his role as an ambassador, which is made up as follows: Salary, $27,330; allowance, $18,000; representation funds, $14,000; travelling allowance in Australia $1,086; travelling allowance and accommodation costs while overseas, $16,800; cost of travel overseas, $5,200. These costs were incurred by Mr Whitlam and charged against the appropriations of the Department of Foreign Affairs during the financial year 1985-86. The point was made in the detailed response to Senate Estimates committee questions on notice-it is being raised here rather than in the Senate Estimates committee hearing because we did not have this information then-that Mr Whitlam's travel within Australia is charged to the Department of the Special Minister of State and that, in addition, Mr Whitlam is a member of the Constitutional Commission and that costs incurred by him while sitting on the Commission are charged to the authority's general department. I notice that under the heading `Constitutional Commission' air fares to transport Mr Whitlam between Paris and Australia for meetings of the Commission totalled about $30,000 for five trips. It is also mentioned that the Department of Education has also been responsible for the payment of some travel costs and travelling allowance to Mr Whitlam, both in Australia and overseas. Would it be possible for the Department to provide us with full details of all these expenditures which total, as far as the Department is concerned, just under $83,000? One would presume that the Department would be aware of them. Otherwise, if one wishes to pursue them one must pursue them through a whole lot of other departments when presumably, they could all be collected under one heading. I raise also the matter of International Year of Peace grants. So many of these grants seem to be extraordinary. I do not want to go through them. Is it possible for the Department not to involve itself in such an extraordinary grant as $550 for the Movement Against Toys of Violence in South Australia? As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said, some of these grants are matters of incredible and indefensible silliness. I hope that the Department will do something to stop this absolute nonsense. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.29) —As to the first point about art leasing, we will certainly provide the information that is sought. As to the sub-sets of details sought-the honourable senator has already been given some dissection, I understand-of Mr Whitlam's expenses, they are able manageably to be provided. To the extent that there is any innuendo underlying the request about Mr Whitlam being a large burden on the exchequer, I remind the honourable senator that his superannuation has been considerably less of a burden than has been the case with a number of other recently prominent retirees as he did not take it, I understand, as a lump sum. Certainly, the information sought can be provided. I have no knowledge of the matter to which Senator Michael Baume last referred but, again, I can probably get some further response on that. I remind Senator Baume, before he leaps to his feet again, that I was solemnly assured by the Manager of Government Business that Senator Baume in turn had solemnly assured him that he would not be leaping to his feet indefatigably on all the subsequent items of these estimates. Has he had a change of heart or was I misinformed? Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.31) —I do not intend to be leaping to my feet consistently. I will endeavour to be as brief as possible on these matters. I am simply raising the ones which there was no opportunity of raising on other occasions which would have been more appropriate had the information been available. Senator Gareth Evans —You showed that you can pass the wet cement test months ago. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I hope the Minister can pass the providing information test. So far we have had a less than adequate supply of information, as he has very nicely conceded on a couple of matters. On the latest matter I simply ask how many instances are there of organisations such as the Australia-Japan Foundation having been provided with lump sums, say at the beginning of the financial year, and having been able to increase substantially the amount of money available to them by putting the money on the short term money market. I am not objecting to their doing so; I am wondering whether it might be a lot better if the Government adopted this procedure throughout the whole of its activities. There is no doubt that the Australia-Japan Foundation can earn more on its money by playing the market than it costs the Government to raise the money in the first place. We could perhaps get a much more streamlined private enterprise approach to governmental activity if this sort of thing happened. I wonder whether there are many other organisations within the Department or under its surveillance that have the capacity to put large amounts of money on the money market to earn substantially more than their grants and, therefore, increase their activities by this private enterprise approach. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.32) —I am advised that apart from the Australia-Japan Foundation the Australia-China Council is the only other body that is given money in advance. Whether its entrepreneurial skills are up to those of the Australia-Japan Foundation I am not sure. No doubt, Senator Michael Baume, with his usual enthusiasm, will in due course find out. I will also ensure that these remarks are drawn to the attention of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) who has general responsibility for the oversight of statutory authorities and bodies of this kind. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $6,589,130,000. Senator SIR JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.33) —I have a number of questions to raise. My first one relates to the proposal by the Department of Defence and by the Government to acquire 900,000 hectares of land in the Cobar area for army manoeuvres. Against the background of my specific questions I remind the Senate that the proposal has now existed for some four years. The people living in the area have had their land frozen for that period. They have been unable to sell or to move. Their properties are devalued. Enormous hardship has been upon them and they have suffered very greatly. I remind the Senate, in addition, that the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has put down a very compelling report saying that the proposal to acquire land in the Cobar area should be rejected. I remind the Senate that there has been no response from the Government on that report. I remind the Senate that the findings of the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities rejected the idea of a major corps force area and training in areas such as Cobar which are quite different from the north where the Dibb report saw the threat. Against that background there has been compelling evidence to show that there should be no acquisition. Nevertheless nothing has happened from the Government despite requests from the Standing Committee, from the people concerned and, repeatedly, from honourable senators. The record of delay in answering letters by the Department of Defence is outrageously bad. I ask the Minister specifically whether I can have the answers to my questions before Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) are finalised. I ask for specific answers as they will have an enormous impact upon many decent Australian people. Has a decision been made by the Government? If so, what was that decision and when was it made? Has there been a change in the user requirement? If so, what change and why was it not announced? Specifically, if there has been any change in the user requirement, why was the Standing Committee not advised of it? I remind the Senate that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave a letter a year or so ago to Mr Ralph Hunt saying, without any qualification, that there would be no compulsory acquisition and no forced dispossession. Is that decision of the Prime Minister still in force? Is it current or has it been repudiated? When was it repudiated? I cannot think of anything more outrageous than this situation, which has gone on for years. The proposal to acquire land imposes hardship on families. The proposal ought to be acted on as efficiently and as quickly as possible so that more hardship does not occur. I remind the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) that there is no money in the estimates currently before us for any land acquisition. I remind him that that evidence came out, I think in his presence, during the Estimates committee hearings. If the Government is to continue the proposal to acquire land it is outrageous that it will not be acquiring it in this financial year. It will be delayed into the next financial year. I sought to find out what kind of environmental impact statements were to be made and what money was being put forward for them. Ultimately, some information came forward that there is a small amount. I also ask what arrangements the Government has made with the New South Wales Government and, specifically, the Western Lands Commissioner to undertake what virtually amounts to an environmental impact statement for the Federal Government. What is the nature of the work being done by the Western Lands Commissioner? Has a report been given by him and how much money is it proposed to pay to the New South Wales Government for the work of that Commissioner? I seek these specific answers because I think this is a matter of grave and continuing concern. It should be put to rest. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.40) —I had a letter from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in, I think, the last few weeks in which, as I recall, he said to me that there would be a report on the Cobar matter in about mid-November. I had approached him to take a delegation of Cobar people to meet him. He was kind enough to say that he would receive them but asked that it be left until mid-November because he expected a report on the Cobar matter at that time. I remind the Minister that it is now just after mid-November. I ask him whether, indeed, this report has come to his attention, what are its contents, whether the Government has made a decision on it or whether he is prepared to say anything about it at this stage. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.41) —First of all, I will draw to the attention of Senator Sir John Carrick's former secretary and mine his comments about the record of the Department of Defence in responding to correspondence generally and see whether we cannot get some more enthusiasm by way of direction from the top, from Mr Woods, than may have been the case in the past. On the Cobar question of whether a decision has been made by the Government, the short answer is no. The Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, is actively discussing the question now with the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of the General Staff in the light of a number of questions that have been raised about this enterprise in the aftermath of the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. Obviously-I think everyone acknowledges this-the thing has been dragging on for a long period and the sooner it can be resolved the better. The question of whether there has been a change in user requirements links in with a question that has been asked by Senator Mason. A review of possible requirements in this respect has been done by the Army. That was something that Mr Beazley was awaiting before he responded to a variety of representations. That review has now been completed and is with the Minister, as I understand it. I do not know what its content is and even if I did know I probably would not be at liberty to reveal it. Clearly, some re-examination is going on, at least of user requirements, but as to further detail I am not able to say. As to the status of the assurances by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about compulsory acquisition and so on, I am not able to give any further information on that. Senator Sir John Carrick —Will you get it, please? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will seek it. As to the question of provision being made for environmental impact effort by the New South Wales Government through the Western Lands Commission as well as the Commonwealth Government, I understand that there is some provision in the estimates for that purpose and it is anticipated that some activity of this kind will take place, contingent I presume on some larger decision to abandon the project not being made, but I repeat that no such decision has been made. As to the absence of provision for any purchase or whatever in this year's estimates, I just make the final point that that of course does not preclude necessarily the possibility of any such funding being allocated pursuant to Additional Estimates should a decision be made. I suppose it is not expected that that will happen, otherwise it would have been in the Budget proper, but it is not necessarily to be assumed that things will drag out to the next financial year if in fact some decision is made to go ahead. So no assumptions about timetabling should necessarily be drawn from the absence of a larger budgetary provision. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.44) —This is the ninth year I have served on an Estimates committee. At the start of consideration of the estimates of every department appearing before Estimates Committee E this year I asked a specific question because I am concerned about the amount of time involved in the demands being put on departments by the committee system of the Parliament. I do not resile from the proposition that it is the function of the Parliament to know what is going on. I think on many things we could know more than we do, but at the same time I think there has to be an air of reasonableness about it. When I see 50 or 60 people coming in here, or even worse than that waiting for a couple of days in the corridor before they come in here, I get concerned. I asked every department how much time it put into preparing its estimates and also how many people it brought in from interstate for the purpose of those estimates. I will quote the answers I got from the Department which appeared before the Department of Defence, from the Department of Defence and from the Department that appeared after the Department of Defence. The Department of Resources and Energy answered in four lines the question of how much time was put into preparing for their estimates. It said: About 480 man hours was put into preparing for the Committee hearing. This includes the time taken in writing the ``Explanatory Notes'' publication, the time spent at the Committee hearing and the time taken to answer questions on notice. That is a lot of time, 480 hours, but the answer is succinct and clear. I accept that it is an estimate, but it was given in only four lines. The Attorney-General's Department answer to the question took about half a page. It said that 64 officers were involved. I will not read the whole answer, but the Department gave a costing as follows: $ Pre-hearing preparation and attendance ... 20,500 Preparation of Booklet ``Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure with Explanations''... 7,700 Fares, Travelling Allowance, Overtime and Tea money, where applicable... 6,700 Follow-up work and attendance at Committee Report to the Senate and at House of Representatives Appropriations Debate... 2,100 That came to an amount of $37,000. Again, it is a reasonably concise and clear answer. Then we come to the Department of Defence and we find that there is an answer covering three-quarters of a page that tells us nothing at all. Madam Temporary Chairman, I seek leave to have the response from the Department of Defence incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- All officers representing the Department would have spent time preparing for the meeting as part of their responsibilities. It is confirmed that no officers came from outside Canberra. On 8 September 1986 all officers attended a meeting (duration 1 hour) aimed at informing representatives, particularly new representatives, of Senate Estimates Committee requirements and outlining the general approach necessary to ensure that the Committee hearing flow as smoothly as possible. The time taken by officers in preparing for the Senate examination would vary considerably depending upon the magnitude and complexity of the area of responsibility relative to each officer attending and of course the extent of knowledge, experience etc. held by respective officers. Where officers are generally well conversant with their areas of responsibilities, specific preparation would only require `refresher' or review activity and the time spent in actual preparation could equate to mere hours. Conversely, it may take some officers days, perhaps weeks to prepare themselves for Senate Estimates examination. Several officers attending the examination would have spent some weeks in preparation by virtue of their involvement in: a. finalisation of the Budget Estimates figuring; b. preparation of Budget documentation e.g. Statement No. 3 Budget Paper No. 1, Budget Paper No. 6; and c. preparation of Defence Explanatory Notes (Volumes 1 and 2). The preparation for Senate Estimates examination is not confined to officers attending the meeting as most officers involved have some support staff who would be required to prepare briefing material. Senator MacGIBBON —I will not go through it, but it is just so woolly and inconsequential that it could be in a debate about a railway timetable. Regrettably, this is one of the reasons why people such as Senator Sir John Carrick with his dissertation on Cobar a few moments ago have worries about the Department of Defence. It is very hard to find anyone there who knows what is going on and can give a concise answer or even a reasonable estimate. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for a number of people within the Department, in both the civilian and the Service elements. However, being quite unemotional about it, if that answer had been given to me by an employee of mine I would have fired him on the spot. It does not help us at all. I think there is an obligation on the Department to shape up. If the Department of Resources and Energy and the Attorney- General's Department can come up with a figure, I do not see why the Department of Defence cannot. I want to come back to where I started; that is, to the large number of people attending Estimates committee hearings. I do not see why we cannot get three or four people from a department to come in and answer the questions asked because, by and large, the questions are of a general nature. I do not see the need for 50 or 60 employees to spend weeks preparing for the hearings and then to come in here. I think that is a waste of resources. My personal view is that questions should be restricted to those senators who are members of a committee but, even if that exclusion is not accepted, I think detailed questions should be submitted in writing before the Estimates committee meets and that we should have a restricted number of officers from the department come in. I find it very hard to believe that senior people such as deputy secretaries and first assistant secretaries-people who are very highly paid and have been in a department for years-cannot answer elementary questions about that department. Yet when we have a first assistant secretary or a deputy secretary at the end of the table and ask a general question the first thing that the person does is turn around and look for one of his minions to answer what is really a general question. I believe that there must be people in a department who have a general knowledge of that department. We are not running a legal inquiry here. We want to know the general drift of where money is going, where it is being spent, why decisions were taken to do such and such. Generally it is a broad inquiry that goes on. I am concerned at the criticisms I have received over the years from the departments about the great deal of effort they have to put into estimates committees, in the first case, and into parliamentary committees generally, in the second case. I think that is partly a smoke-screen, partly a political exercise, on the part of the departments. They want to cry poor mouth and say it is taking a great deal of their resources. Nevertheless, I think that behind it all there is some justification for their complaint. I think it is incumbent on the Senate not to make undue and unreasonable demands. I will leave it at that. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.50) —I have two areas of questioning. The first concerns divisions 234 and 241-equipment and stores and defence production. The second concerns personnel. I will deal first with the equipment and stores and defence production votes which are, of course, enormous. It is very important that these votes be efficiently managed and that equipment be wisely chosen. One of the most important recommendations, in my view, of the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities was the recommendation to centralise defence procurement planning under the Chief of the Defence Force. It has been disastrous to have it scattered among the three Services. It has produced an adversarial relationship. Individual services each plan their equipment without any coherence. They go into the endless committees that study these things, aware that something which goes to another service means that there is less chance for them to get what they want. It seems to me that the most important single step we can make in the efficient administration of our very expensive defence procurement in order to produce an Australian Defence Force that is a coherent whole is to centralise forward planning for future equipment under the control of the Chief of the Defence Force. I ask the Minister whether any serious steps have been taken in this regard, when are we likely to see results and, finally in this area, whether the Force Development and Analysis Division, which is at the moment under the administration of Deputy Secretary B, when this organisation is complete, will be put under the Chief of the Defence Force. One of the things that have caused vast friction between the military and civil components of the Department of Defence is the adversarial relationship which has built up. Nothing is more likely to provoke this sort of thing than if the professional officers are making recommendations and they are being second-guessed by a civil department which is not responsible under the same structure. I ask those specific questions of the Minister because, in my view, this is the most important modification of the organisation of the Department of Defence that can be made. There will still be very important roles for the chiefs of staff of each service. Incidentally, they are much better named the commanders of the Army, Navy and Air Force because that is really what they are. They should be told to get on with training and running the forces they have. The future structure of the Defence Force should come directly under the Chief of the Defence Force. The second area I wish to raise is the question of pay for Defence Force and civil personnel. I refer to divisions 230 and 232. There has been an explosion of senior ranks in the Services. It was caused primarily because when the Defence Department was amalgamated out of what were previously the separate service departments-a step which I think was very wise, but unfortunately very badly done-one of the more bizarre things that were done in the so-called Tange report was that civil servants were given quasi-military rank. Assistant secretaries were described as one-star officers or brigadiers, first assistant secretaries were described as two-star officers or major-generals, and deputy secretaries were described as three-star officers or lieutenant-generals. I do not know what description was given to the Secretary. I do not think any description would have been possible. The number of stars was not available. This might have seemed to be a harmless bit of napoleonic mania but, unfortunately, it had some very unsatisfactory structural effects on the Defence Force. By the way, one might think that the number of lieutenant-generals in the Army might be higher than the number of quasi-lieutenant-generals in the Public Service. There is one lieutenant-general in the Australian Army and nine quasi-lieutenant-generals in the Public Service. This, of course, is a mania. It would not have mattered so much if it had just been, as I said, some sort of napoleonic complex. But it has had very serious results. The problem hinges on the fact that when these equivalent military ranks were made, the criterion was pay. That might be a nice, simple way of doing it, but it had nothing to do with responsibility. In terms of responsibility, the service officers were linked one or two ranks too high with the Public Service. I will give one example: There has recently been a very important submarine project headed by a commodore. The Department wanted to appoint an assistant secretary to his staff. But according to the system, you cannot have an assistant secretary reporting to a mere commodore. He had to be promoted to an admiral so the assistant secretary could report to him. That is one example of the senseless explosion of ranks. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table showing the present strengths of the various service ranks, which I have previously shown to the Minister. It was provided to me in answer to a question I asked of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Leave granted. The table read as follows- Rank Active strength as at 30 Sept. 86 Serving in Canberra Number % of active strength Navy Vice Admiral... 1 1 100 Rear Admiral... 13 9 69 Commodore... 27 18 67 Army General... 1 1 100 Lieutenant-General... 1 1 100 Major-General... 13 8 62 Brigadier... 45 24 53 Air Force Air Marshal... 2 2 100 Air Vice Marshal ... 10 7 70 Air Commodore... 29 16 55 Note: Figures for each Service exclude 3 Principal Chaplains who are based in Canberra. Senator HAMER —The table shows that we now have 14 admirals and 27 commodores, 15 generals and 45 brigadiers, 12 air marshals and 29 air commodores. If we take the Navy as an example, there are 14 admirals and 27 commodores. We fought the Second World War with 45,000 men, 3 admirals and 4 commodores. Senator Newman —How many ships? Senator HAMER —There were many more ships, of course, during the Second World War. Now there are 15,000 men, 14 admirals and 27 commodores. Worse still, there is only one sea job for an admiral and no sea jobs for any of the 27 commodores. This is an absurd situation. It has been caused by this linking of the ranks of public servants with servicemen, and the requirement to serve on joint committees, on which the Services must be represented by a person of a rank which is equivalent to the rank of the person from the Department of Defence. If the Defence Department provides an assistant secretary, the Army must provide a brigadier, the Navy a commodore and the Air Force an air commodore. It has caused an extraordinary explosion of ranks, with no sensible corresponding operational positions. One answer I received some years ago was: `Well, it is a useful reserve for wartime expansion'. The last thing one wants is to have a large number of officers in reserve for wartime expansion who have no recent operational experience. It is far better to keep them in jobs in which they can be properly employed, kept up-to-date in their profession, and promote them as one needs them for wartime expansion, and not promote them too early. Of course, it will not be easy to change the position. The admirals, generals and air marshals rather like being admirals, generals and air marshals. Certainly, if one changed the relative rank structure of the public servants and service officers, one would have to increase sharply the pay of the officers. There is one officer on the staff of a senator who had the same job in the Navy on three occasions. It was an identical job. On the first occasion he was a lieutenant-commander, the second time a commander, and the third time a captain. This shows the explosion of ranks that has been going on. This would not matter if it were merely a matter of public servants having delusions of napoleonic grandeur and the service officers being given status as admirals and generals. But it does matter, because they do not have current operational experience. Our headquarters staff, our command at the top, is grossly out of balance with our operational forces. In my view it is urgent that steps be taken by the Government to bring these two areas into a proper balance. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.58) —I want to raise a specific matter. I understand that the Department of Defence has had a study made into the possible conversion of the Australian Venturer into a containerised aviation support ship. I trust that the Department is studying that report closely. I would like some idea of what consequence that has had so far and what the Government's thinking is in that area. I wish to raise some points in that area. I feel a certain responsibility to do so in that I think it was the Australian Democrats who first objected in this place to the provision of a short-deck aircraft carrier. Of course, if one does not have a short-deck aircraft carrier, it is obviously reasonable to have some other form of air defence for convoys of merchant ships. One British ship, I think, has already been converted from a merchant container vessel to a containerised military vessel. The former MV Astronomer is now the Reliant, a containerised helicopter support platform. The Government should indicate in its reply what study will be made of that. While in Britain earlier this year I spoke with officials of British Aerospace about the shipboard containerised air defence system, which is a method of converting merchant ships into containerised helicopter or Sea Harrier support platforms. In other words, it is not necessary to have a separate military vessel to carry out this sort of work. Sea Harriers are contained in one container and their control systems in another. Apart from any other consideration, if a merchant container ship converted in this way is severely mauled in a battle at sea it can be cannibalised and the containerised system, if it is reasonable intact, can be put into another ship. This system is of some importance to our defence planning at this stage since it provides the ability rapidly to expand a naval fleet in times of crisis. That is relevant to the type of situation we are likely to face. Such a system provides a seaborne platform with several primary roles for the operation of both aircraft-I am speaking now of Sea Harriers, but there are other possibilities-and helicopters without the massive cost of an aircraft carrier. It provides self-contained protection for merchant ships in convoy. A vital point is that it is relatively inexpensive and it provides for minimum off-shore expenditure by having the modular component manufactured and fitted in Australia. So this system gives the possibility of a very significant Australian component. I understand from British Aerospace that containerised systems may be prepared ready for fast installation on unprotected merchant ships to provide defence against air, surface or submarine threat. If that indeed is so, the system is well worth investigation by our defence forces. The minimum deck area necessary for conversion to air operation is 115 metres by 20 metres. So most large standard container vessels are perfectly satisfactory for that purpose. I am given to understand by British Aerospace that by providing a simple modular runway and ski jump on a suitable merchant ship it can be transformed into a low-cost aircraft carrier. The typical conversion suggested to me by British Aerospace would be on a hull of the order of 30,000 tonnes, which would provide a flight deck approximately 120 metres long and 14 metres wide. This would be sufficient to operate and support-I suggest to the Minister that this is vital-a deployment of six Sea Harriers, each of which would be able to undertake a full combat air patrol of one and a half hours duration at a distance of 175 kilometres from the parent ship. Such a force would have very considerable clout. It is also possible to use naval weapons systems in modular form. A combination of modular systems could provide all the characteristics of a light aircraft carrier. The outer layer of defence would be provided by Sea Harriers operating from the modular flight deck and ski jump laid on top of the ship's deck hatches or by helicopters, which need even less deck space. Close area defence could be provided by an anti-missile system and passive defence by a chaff decoy system. Of course, these are standard components in most warships. There could also be command, control and communications systems and air surveillance sensors. I am informed by British Aerospace that all are adaptable for modular fit and even the antenna pylon can be provided in modular form. Such experiments are being carried out in Britain. I understand also that the United States Marine Corps is looking seriously at this whole area as a means of providing cheap, flexible and easily expendable ships of that type. Container ships can also be converted to amphibious assault craft with, typically, accommodation for 300 troops, logistics to support them, helicopter pads and command and communication facilities. Self-protection could also be provided by modular anti-missile and chaff decoy systems. I raise this matter in some detail because I think it is important to us at this stage. The conversion of the Reliant in Britain was permanent; it was a container ship converted permanently to be a platform for airborne facilities. However, the temporary fit is what we should look at in Australia. This could provide a very flexible defence force with ships which could be used in ordinary trade once the initial installations were made to them and in time of war or crisis they could be converted within 24 or 48 hours by the installation of containerised modular facilities. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(6.05) —I should like to comment on the general breakup of funding in the Department of Defence vote. The Government is making a big thing out of spending such a high proportion-around 27 to 28 per cent-of the vote this year on new capital equipment. The truth of the matter is that it simply has no choice in that because it has to meet contractual obligations for new equipment-most of it purchased from overseas-that were entered into by the previous Government and which will not be paid out for some years. Of necessity, about 30 per cent of the Defence vote for the next few years will go to new equipment. To keep the vote sensibly the same-it might have gone up one per cent this year in real terms-the Government has cut back progressively year after year on money allocated for training. That process is now at a point where it is causing serious problems in the Services. When this proposition was first advanced it was on the basis that there would be a temporary cutback in money for training. It was to last two or three years. But we are now locked into something which will run for about a decade. We cannot afford the erosion in skills and capabilities that comes from that. One of the reasons for the very high resignation rate in the Services at present obviously lies in the way in which the Government has allowed the conditions of service to be eroded. It has not maintained pay scales and allowances at their former levels in real terms. One of the contributing factors in the resignation rate also is the lack of funds for adequate training. There has been a reduction in flying time for the Royal Australian Air Force and there has been a reduction in sailing time in the Royal Australian Navy. Yesterday I was at 1st Division in Brisbane for a field day and I was talking to a sniper. Snipers start out as expert marksmen but they go through a special training course. They are a special type of person. They have to live by themselves in the field. They have highly developed camouflage and concealment skills and individual survival skills. I asked the sniper: `How much range practice do you do to maintain the extraordinarily high level of skills you have as a marksman?' He replied: `Well, sir, until a little while ago we used to do at least a monthly range practice'. I asked: `What are you doing now?'. He said: `Oh, we are lucky if we get two range practices a year'. We are talking about maybe $500 or $1,000 in ammunition. Small arms ammunition for a sniper is really peanuts. If that is an indication of the squeeze on the force at present, we are losing skills, we are disappointing people and we will lose them. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(6.08) —On the estimates for the Department of Housing and Construction I drew attention to the problems with defence housing and to what I believe to be waste in the area of construction costs. So I do not intend to canvass that area again. I recognise that in the last week the Government has finally announced the establishment of an interim housing authority. That is well overdue as the Government announced six months ago that an interim authority would be established. It is welcome even though it is so late. We are also awaiting the review of the defence service home loans scheme. I hope that the answer I got from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) the other day will produce a final public result of that fairly shortly as well. As Senator MacGibbon just said, the conditions of service in our forces are of great concern to anybody who studies the situation. There is an alarming resignation rate in all the Services. Something like 12.3 per cent of our servicemen are signing off. We cannot accept this with equanimity. Ten per cent of the Army officer corps has left in the past year. A number of things are being done and I give credit for that. Those things are being done, but they were neglected for far too long. Nevertheless, recently this Government introduced a cut of two per cent in service pension entitlements as well as those of retired servicemen already receiving pensions. It was a real cut of 2 per cent in money previously in their hands. That is quite disgraceful and there can be no justification for it. If the Government is prepared to do things such as that, the establishment of back bench committees to monitor the conditions of service of our servicemen will be for nothing. I read the defence that the Minister put into the Army newspaper about a month ago over these defence force retirement and death benefit cuts. If I was a serviceman reading that, I would say something fairly vulgar, but I do not suppose one can in this chamber. Senator Grimes —Oh, have a go. Senator NEWMAN —No, I might get thrown out. I would not like that to happen because I have too much to say. I would like to quote from a letter I received this week from a mother who has children in the Services. She referred to the article I wrote in the defence supplement in the Australian last week: Your comments verify what our children in the services have told us, and as parents we are most concerned at the low morale developed following a period of high expectation and dedication on enlistment. What a sad comment that is! I also draw the Committee's attention to the comment of the Defence Ombudsman that a large part of his work over the last year has been concerned with conditions of service. I also draw the Committee's attention to the fact that ministerial complaints for the Department of Defence have risen since 1982 from something like 5,000 to something like 8,000 last year. I know from past experience that a large number of those complaints result from problems with conditions of service. That is an alarming jump over such a few years. I recognise that the Government is trying to do something but it cannot do it fast enough for the servicemen of our country. It is not just the cost to the individuals; it is the cost to the nation. In answer to a question I asked at an estimates Committee I was given information which enabled me to make the calculation of what the wastage in this past year will mean to Australia. It represents an extra charge of $91m basically just to replace the people we have lost. It will cost about $27m for advertising and recruiting. The balance is made up of charges incurred in simply giving basic training to our service people. It does not include their corps training or officer training. It is big money we are talking about and we cannot afford to waste it because nobody seems to want to spend enough money on defence in this country at this time. In the light of that, the Defence Department has to be very careful about how it spends its money. I fear that we are being penny wise and pound foolish when it comes to allowing our service people to live in such poor housing, with such poor pay and with such poor conditions of service for their families that they are walking out and causing us to spend unnecessarily a minimum of $91m to replace them. I also ask the Government to tell me why we are now recruiting so very few apprentices. Over about the last five years the recruitment of apprentices has gone from 700-odd to a very much smaller figure. In fact, the number of apprentices in the Services over the last five years has gone from something like 2,000 to 1,000. Senator Kilgariff —We can't afford them; the generals are getting all the money. Senator NEWMAN —From what Senator Hamer said tonight, maybe the money has all gone to the top brass. But I am seriously concerned, both for the Services and for the youth of the nation. We have been going through trying and economic times and have a lot of young people unemployed. We are looking for ways to get them trained and into meaningful jobs and we need to have a lot of well trained apprentices going into trades. What are we doing if we are decreasing, by such a dramatic percentage, the number of young people being trained in apprenticeships in the Services? That is surely one area where government policy can ensure that we do the right thing. I would like to have an explanation as to why this is happening. I draw attention in passing to the high number of resignations from the Army Reserve. Honourable senators who attended the Estimates committee hearings, both recently and earlier in the year, would agree that the explanations given by the Department for the wastage in the Reserve were not very satisfactory. It took nearly six months to get a potted version of the study into the Army Reserve wastage, and a most unsatisfactory potted version it was. Anybody with two legs could walk around the Reserve establishments in this country and get a better coverage of the reasons for resignation than was provided to honourable senators in that potted study. The Department really has let us down in the way it dealt with that question, which is a question of great seriousness to us all. Moving on to the way questions were answered, Senator MacGibbon spoke earlier about the desirability of improving the system for the Estimates committee hearings for the Defence Department. I am not on that committee. Consequently, because of my responsibilities on another committee, I took the opportunity to put all my questions on notice. It is not a procedure that I would choose to follow again because I do not believe that I got very satisfactory answers. I think Sir Humphrey is alive and well and living in the Department of Defence. I accept that, on the grounds of security, I did not get answers to my questions on the Special Air Service Regiment. I trust that the security of this country is in good hands. I am concerned about the issues I raised about the SAS but I have been assured that I should not be worried. I hope that that is an accurate answer. There were other questions that could and should have been answered better. I refer first of all to an answer which concerns the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. I draw the Committee's attention to my question, which was: Is it a fact that the Antarctic Division has requested supply of freeze-dried ration packs from the Department, and that this request has been refused? If so, why? I do not want to take up the Committee's time, but I have to say that, although it is a fairly long answer, it really did not answer my question at all. I was told in passing that the Armed Forces Food Service Establishment at Scottsdale is not set up for large scale manufacture. I know that area and the establishment very well. It used to manufacture a great deal more than it does today, so it has quite a lot of spare capacity. Therefore, I do not accept the answer on that. The Department also said: We are not aware of any such request having been received by Defence Central to date. I understand that the Antarctic Division has had a letter from Defence-I am not quite sure whence it came because Defence has many heads-but its requirements for freeze-dried rations was refused this year. In my opinion there was a good reason for it but I was not given that. The reason given was that there had been a typhoon in the Pacific and the Department had re-directed ration packs for emergency assistance to our Pacific neighbours. Consequently the AFFSE organisation was working hard to supply the Services' needs and did not have spare capacity. I understand that the Antarctic Division has a requirement next year for $200,000 worth of freeze-dried rations for long term storage at the Pole. The AFFSE at Scottsdale has great hopes of successfully tendering for that job. There is a requirement for a subsequent expenditure of about $10,000 to $12,000 per year in the provision of freeze-dried ration packs. I understand that AFFSE is intending to tender for it. I cannot understand why I got all this gobbledegook and not a plain, straight answer. I cannot see what the reasoning behind it was. I welcome the opportunity for AFFSE to do this work. The objectives of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation have just been reviewed. In fact, the recommendations suggest that the work of the Organisation should be widened. But there is a very real opportunity for it to undertake tasks which would not interfere with its defence work. It could expand its operations. I think it is very appropriate that the Organisation should practice doing large scale work because any bugs that there may be in the system will only be discovered in a wartime situation. So the answer to that question was most unsatisfactory. I also asked the following very specific questions concerning restrictions on exercise resources for the Australian Defence Force: What were the bids for exercise resources for 1986-87? Has the Government applied restrictions? What restrictions if any have been placed on flying hours for the RAAF.....? Have any reductions been made in steaming time for the Navy....? Have exercise hours for the Army been cut? If in fact restrictions have been applied, is it not true that they will seriously impair training for the next financial year? Once again, I received a quite long wordy answer which ends up saying: Overall, the major activities of the Services are expected to be held at about the same level as achieved in 1985-86. I asked a specific series of questions and I expected to receive specific answers. I ask again for my questions to be answered. By way of example, could I please be told what was the average number of exercises held per infantry battalion in the last year? What is the average number of exercises per infantry battalion intended for the coming year? How many times will the brigades exercise and when will the next divisional exercise be held? I pass on to another answer which was unsatisfactory and that concerns the total training and recruitment costs. I do not want to elaborate on that now because from the figures that I was initially given and with the help of the Parliamentary Library I was able to arrive at the figure I quoted earlier as to what the replacement cost would be for the number of personnel who have to be replaced this year. It seems to me that the Department comes into Estimates committee meetings on the defensive. It cannot seem to understand that there are people in this Parliament who care very deeply about defence matters. They are very concerned for our service personnel and the better defence of our country. If the huge number of officers who attend the Estimates committee hearings simply spend their time trying to give us wordy answers that do not come to grips with the questions asked, one has to be suspicious of what they are here for at all. I want to close by drawing their attention to an excellent article written by the Senate Clerk Assistant, Anne Lynch, and which appeared in the last issue of `The House Magazine' in which she described the role of Senate Estimates committees. I suggest that every member of the Defence Department who attends Estimates committee meetings should take that article away and study it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(6.24) —I would like to make some general remarks about the complaints of Senator MacGibbon and Senator Newman. I have committed many sins in this place but one of them is not a belief that senators are not supposed to be given proper answers at Question Time, in questions on notice or at Estimates committee hearings. Senator Newman has given some examples of questions for which she received unsatisfactory answers on anybody's judgment. Senator Michael Baume did the same this afternoon. Senator Sir John Carrick has been trying to get an answer for three months on a certain matter. I would not be too pleased if that happened to me and I dare say that we will hear about this matter in the next few days. Part of the problem-and this is the matter that Senator MacGibbon raised-is the way in which Estimates committees have been conducted. Over the last 14 years that I have been in this place there has been a sort of cyclical change. When I first became a member of this place a few public servants would be brought along to Estimates committee meetings. People would ask questions. When they received answers that were not satisfactory they would demand that more staff attend the meetings. More staff would attend the hearings the next time the Estimates Committee met but the answers of necessity did not get better. People lost interest. So there has been a cyclical attendance and varying standards of answers. I believe that there is a belief in some sections of the Public Service-and I am not necessarily singling out the Department of Defence-and I dare say by some Ministers from both sides at various times that we are better off if senators and members do not get the information or if the information is obscure and confusing. They are wrong. Ministers, the Public Service, members of parliament and the whole community will be better off if answers are straight and clear and we do not have the nonsense that goes on in this place sometimes. I must say that one of the problems-and I think Senator MacGibbon touched on this-is that sometimes the questioning and the line of questioning apparently has no purpose. Some honourable senators engage in a huge fishing expedition. Some honourable senators always ask about the cost of postage, the rental of flowers and God knows what. As a result, pages and pages of tedious trivia, which is never used, is recorded. I must say, to be critical, that some honourable senators ask the same question every year and get the same answer. But they never seem to be able to remember the answer that was given the previous year. As a result I suppose people get disheartened. I think there is need to reform the system. I think suggestions that have been made about Estimates committee hearings being attended by a smaller number of people who have a general knowledge, about specific questions being asked and about questions being placed on notice are fine. If Senator Newman's experience of questions on notice is anything to go by, that is not fine at all. I think we really have to come to grips with this matter. By and large, Opposition senators ask all the questions and the hearings go on and on and government senators do not ask questions because they want to see the hearings concluded. That is not satisfactory at all. I will seek proper answers to the questions that Senator Newman asked. Senator Durack —Unfortunately that didn't happen with our back benchers when we were in government. Senator GRIMES —Sometimes it did; sometimes it did not. Senator Hamer raised the matter of the Dibb recommendation of centralising defence procurement planning under the Chief of the Defence Force. In fact, a study has been made by the Chief of the Defence Force. The Minister, the Secretary to the Department of Defence and the CDF are in the process of looking at it. We will have to wait and see what the report recommends. Maybe we will be able to avoid the trouble that the Americans got into a couple of years ago when, on the same day as the navy sold 50,000 excess tyres of a certain size for a tenth of their price, the army bought the same number for twice the price. I will not comment on the practical and sensible remarks that Senator Hamer made about the explosion at senior levels in the Army and particularly the Navy. Senator Hamer —All Services. Senator GRIMES —I have heard this matter debated before. The sort of spurious justification that I have heard in the past is that this is a result of the integration of the civilian and military sections and the necessity to maintain the hierarchical structures. But I will not use that argument here today because I fear the derision I would get from Senator Hamer if I did so. I will refer that matter to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Senator Mason spoke of the conversion of container ships to helicopter carriers. He got very technical and at that stage I am afraid I lost his argument a bit. I am told that Defence is aware of the need to keep abreast of overseas studies in this area. As a result of this, the study of the conversion of merchant shipping for helicopter operations has been undertaken and will continue to be undertaken. But I do not know any details about it and I will have to refer the matter to the Minister and the Department, as I will, I am afraid, the details of the very important matters raised by Senator Newman about housing. I am very interested to see what will happen as a result of the report by Ms Hamilton in the defence service housing area. I am informed that one of the reasons for the tailing off in apprentices employed by the Department is the change to a more electronic and technological type service in respect of which apprentice type training is not used. In fact, this year some 50 more apprentices have been employed than was the case last year. I understand that this trend will continue in the future. I am disappointed that the Scottsdale establishment was unable to supply the Antarctic Division with the food that it needed. Obviously the answer that Senator Newman received was appalling. I hope that in the future that establishment and other sections of the armed services in this country can be used in the way the armed services of some other countries, including the United States of America, are used. I hope they will be in the vanguard of the development of processes like freeze-dried food, as the Scottsdale establishment is in this country, and even the developments in some areas of civil engineering. Senator Newman —They are the only ones doing it. Senator GRIMES —That is right. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(8.00) —I would like to concentrate on the stores side of the Department of Defence. This seems to be a major problem. (Quorum formed) I believe that there are major savings to be made if we develop a sensible `buy Australian' policy. I would like here to refer to Senator MacGibbon, who regularly provides us with useful examples in this area. The Department of Defence was only second to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in terms of its performance of bringing large numbers of people to the Estimates Committee hearings and then answering so many questions only on notice. I bring that to the attention of the Committee. During the hearings in April of the Supplementary Estimates I asked a number of questions and I received the answers to those only about two days before the September Estimates committee hearings. Senator Robert Ray —You asked about 2,000 questions. You cannot expect them all to be answered. Senator VIGOR —They were only answered two days before the September Estimates hearings, Senator Ray. This is really quite unsatisfactory and it is the same type of problem that Senator Newman was talking about. I note with some interest that the Minister at the table, the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), has taken up this point, and I hope he will pass it on to the members of the Department of Defence. I am seeking pretty full answers to some of the questions which I originally asked during the April Supplementary Estimates hearings. As a result of one of my questions on a small arms tender the Department succeeded in providing a chronology, without any dates, and the answer was completely void of any content. I subsequently had to try to get some information during the September Estimates meetings, but I did not manage to obtain any useful information as to what was happening with the project concerned. In fact at that time I referred to the previous unsatisfactory answer. I note for the public record that I intend to pursue the matter. I now ask whether I can get satisfactory answers to the questions which, by now, have been asked twice. I have given the officers from the Department notice of this. It seems odd for the Department to be afraid to give basic information on matters where Australian companies are involved. In fact there was an attempt by both Senator MacGibbon and me to get more information on this subject. Another area in which I did not get answers that made any sense related to the Army computer system. An officer told me that the Army computer system had identified 62,076 usage based items as inactive. Apparently none of these items had been issued for 36 months or more; that is, the items had been marked down in the inventory as not having been moved for 36 months or more. The explanation given was that many of these items are useful only in times of war. I am not suggesting that we should try to remedy that by making them useful in a war, but there was no answer to the question of how many items had not been issued in the past 12 months. Coupled with the earlier information, this figure would give us an idea to what extent there is a problem with equipment turnover and obsolescence. I believe we have to look very closely at the supply margins, which do not appear to have been adjusted since the computer system was introduced in May 1981, but inventory levels have apparently dropped in this period. The stock control usage based Army system, or the SCUBA system, was designed to provide greater access to information and to cut the cost of inventory. Such reduced costs have not been quantified-I have tried to get them-and that makes me wonder whether there has been any type of internal or Australian Audit Office audit of this system. I would like the Minister or the Department to tell me whether this is the case. I also wonder whether there is a plain English description for all the items in the inventory or whether we are dealing with an abstract coding system. I have been told that items for other wings of Defence can be notoriously difficult to find at times because the people in stores do not know what is being sought. This problem was brought to my attention by a constituent. There may not be a problem in the Army, but it would be useful to know whether this is the case anywhere else. In the answers supplied to the Committee we were also told that no information is kept on the purchase value of equipment disposed of as surplus. If we think about the amount of money that is involved in Army surplus, we start to wonder about the system. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services arranges disposal and returns the money which it gets from such sales to the Department of Defence. DOLGAS has no information either on the purchase cost of the materials it disposes of. According to the latest report of the Auditor-General on financial statements for 1985-86 nearly $52m is written off by Defence as: . . . lost, deficient, condemned, unserviceable or obsolete stores. The write-off for these stores during 1984-85 was just over $49m. These are fairly substantial sums. They should be subjected to some kind of scrutiny within our committee system at some stage. Senator Watson —They are. Senator VIGOR —Well, it should be in a lot of detail. I am also interested in following up PISCES-principal item stock control and entitlement system-in the Army, which seems to have something fishy about it. An efficiency audit report was conducted into it and tabled last week. The report revealed severe developmental weaknesses-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Townley) —Order! We are trying to discuss the Estimates line by line. The honourable senator should not make a second reading stage speech. I would be grateful if he would ask questions rather than make speeches. Senator Aulich —I take a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I just indicate that the honourable senator appears to be reading directly from notes. The honourable senator has done this on a number of occasions. I for one take umbrage at the fact that over and over again I am forced to listen to a read speech, possibly written by a research officer. We are all prepared to come in here and listen but not to a prepared speech read directly to us. I ask you to rule on that matter. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I find there is no point of order, which the honourable senator might be surprised to hear. If he would like me to, I will make that ruling in regard to everybody else who comes into this chamber. I think he would be quite shocked at the result. I remind Senator Vigor that this is not the time for a second reading stage speech. Senator VIGOR —I am quite happy to go through this at length and not read a speech at all and spend some time-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! I did not say that the honourable senator was reading his speech. I would be grateful if he would get on with what he was saying. Senator VIGOR —I was trying to get through it as quickly as possible. There were major inaccuracies in the data. In August 1985 the accuracy of the depot asset data produced by PISCES was estimated by the Army to be 80 per cent. It also revealed that quite important things had been overlooked. This created ongoing problems with the computer and an inclination on the ground to get around the whole system by various unofficial means. That is the sign of a system that is failing. Discrepancies created by inaccurate loading time data were being sorted out 18 months later. I ask the Minister what exactly is being done with these types of systems. Has the Department examined what it has to do to improve its store management programs? I also point out at this stage that there have been a number of retrenchments and other rearrangements at Garden Island and Williamstown dockyards. The Committee was provided with a comparison of staffing profiles in the last two years. I seek leave to have the comparison incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows: A broad profile of staff reductions made at Garden Island and Williamstown Dockyards is as follows: 1985-86 1986-87 Variation SES Level 3 ... 1 1.75 + .75 Level 2 ... 1 2 + 1 Level 1 ... 3 3 - SES Sub-total ... 5 6.75 + 1.75 Class 9-11 ... 90 119 + 29 All others ... 5,205.6 4,791.25 -414.35 Paid Inoperatives ... 176 176 - Total ... 5,476.6 5,093 -383.6 Senator VIGOR —I thank the Committee. What we notice is growth in the class 9 to class 11 area from 90 to 119, while over 400 jobs were lost. In fact, the Department told us in September that 385 people had gone from Williamstown and 446 from Garden Island, so there will be an interesting update for the end of the financial year. The impression was given in the oral evidence to the Committee that up-to-date production control systems were now in place at Garden Island and that improvements were happening all the time. I would be interested if the Minister could give me some details of how these developments are operating in light of the figures given here on staffing levels and in light of the major criticisms made of management in the Peat Marwick Mitchell Services review of program management performance last year. Indeed, it claimed that productivity was low, that work place communications and industrial relations mechanisms were unwieldy-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator is starting to transgress into a second reading speech. Senator VIGOR —Basically, I want to point out to the Minister that the problem in those dockyards is a management problem. I would like to know what the Government and the Department are planning to do about it. I have one further point. I would also like to know from the Minister what is happening with the planned extensions to the Port Wakefield range in my home State of South Australia. Will we have the same sorts of problems as happened in the Cobar region with the Army land grab where false information, or at least information that may be misleading about what is actually happening to the range, is given? I would like to know because a number of people in my State are concerned about this matter. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.16) —I will seek answers to that multitude of questions from Senator Vigor. Perhaps some time we ought to do a costing on the amount of questions asked by Senator Vigor at various committees. I am told that the Auditor-General did criticise PISCES, the principal item stock control and entitlement system, without making the corniest joke that I have heard in the chamber for some time. He made 29 recommendations and the Department is what is described as responding positively to those recommendations. I will get some answers on that. Neither I nor the advisers here know anything about the stock control usage based-Army or SCUBA project, apart from the fact that it is part of the redevelopment project in the Department's automatic data processing system that is being investigated. With regard to the Port Parham rifle range, I am told that apparently the Defence Department would acquire only the smaller of the two proposed additions involving an extension of the region north of the range and would not go ahead with the larger acquisition covering Port Parham and Webb Beach. That may mean something to Senator Vigor but it does not mean anything to me. The Minister announced that on 22 August. I am afraid that I do not have any knowledge about the rest of the stuff, which was very technical. Certainly the officers here cannot get information on it now. I will take Senator Vigor'scomplaints about the lack of information in the answers that he was given in the past and will refer them to the Minister and to the Department. I apologise for that. I would love to know how many trees we have to cut down to supply all the answers. As I have said many times before, if Senator Vigor seeks that information, he will get it eventually. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(8.18) —During the Estimates committee examinations, quite a number of questions were directed to the Minister for Defence and to the Department of Defence concerning the armoured personnel carriers. As a background to what I am about to say and the questions I am about to ask, I point out that the armoured personnel carriers are 30 years old and therefore, in anybody's language, antiquated. Also, during the Fraser Government's era, it was decided that they were obsolete and that they should be replaced by new kinds of armoured personnel carriers and the Waler project was developed. When the Hawke Government came to office, it scrapped the Waler project and decided that it would do something about the existing APCs, of which I think there are about 596. I draw attention to the fact that last year or the year before the Auditor-General put in a very detailed report damning the present armoured personnel carriers. He said that they were grossly inefficient and dangerous. He pointed to defects in their armour, that is, in their protection of the troops, defects in their armaments and defects in their propulsion. It was a report as stringent as any I have seen an Auditor-General make. That has been raised and discussed in previous Estimates committee hearings and a rather cavalier approach was taken. At the Estimates committee hearings, I asked what was happening and when any upgrading would be done. I draw attention to the fact that some four years have gone by during which an assessment of what is wrong with these carriers should have been made and a new plan brought forward. We were told that it would take another three years to determine what form of updating, or modification, there ought to be for the armoured personnel carriers. All who heard that would have been horrified. It would take another three years-after the four years-to decide what to do. They thought that after they had determined what to do it would take another two years. So from the time the Hawke Government came to power until this procedure is complete nine years will have elapsed. That would be perfectly all right if we were dealing with toast racks, bunks, hammocks or something like that. But we are dealing with primary protection of our troops in the field, who could be engaged in all sorts of small scale warfare, or even large scale warfare. The fundamental job of a government is to ensure that its troops are properly protected. One thing is certain. The present armoured personnel carriers do not measure up. They do not protect even against the most primitive kinds of weapons that could be used by an opponent. They do not offer efficient protection. Their turrets are virtually inoperative. Their propulsion is bad. I cannot believe that any government would allow public servants to give this kind of evidence. Lest anyone have any doubts about this matter, I asked how long it would take before the Department could make up its mind. The answer was: We would seek to have a progressive program rolling through the fleet, commencing as soon as possible after the decisions are made, which I would expect may be able to be commenced in about three years-- so the decisions are to take three years from now, after four years already- but going for a number of years to cover the total operational fleet. I have not heard anything so outrageous. I ask the Minister: Does the Government believe that it is good enough for Australian soldiers to have personnel carriers which the Auditor-General, previous governments and service officers have condemned as being both inefficient and incapable of providing adequate protection? Does the Government believe that this is good enough for the Australian people? Does the Government honestly believe that it is good enough for it to take another three years to decide what kinds of modifications ought to be made and then to take a couple of years after that to make them? It is extraordinary. It points to the quality of the evidence we have been given. During the Estimates Committee discussion on the estimates for the Department of Defence questions were asked about the reported loss of ammunition. For a while the answer given was that there was no loss of ammunition. When pressed, the officer indicated that he understood that the loss concerned a particular ammunition depot and nowhere else. My own question had been plainly answered. I asked whether there had been a loss of ammunition. It turned out that at Maribyrnong there had been a loss. We received this answer only when I put the quaint situation that if there had been no loss of ammunition why was the Government in the process of prosecuting someone for stealing ammunition. It seemed a little quaint. As in Alice in Wonderland, it became curiouser and curiouser. Answers do not appear to be forthcoming. They appear to be-if I may say so without reflection on the officers-grudging and limited to the tightest possible corner. I do not understand why. In the end we were told that 19 bags of black powder and a box of cartridge cases had been stolen from the Commonwealth Munitions Factory at Maribyrnong. Yesterday Senator Evans, with good intention, in answer to a question said that the ammunition stolen would not be useful for a terrorist. I have had a little to do with bags of black powder in my day. I do not think a real terrorist effort could be made with it, but I could make a big explosion with it. It is not something to be treated lightly. It is not sophisticated ammunition but if someone can come away with 19 bags of black powder it indicates that the security in these places is not very good. Apparently, as a result some kind of metal scanner has been hotted-up. I have always been interested in this type of situation. One cannot blowup Parliament House with metal devices but any kind of plastic device or plastic explosive is legal. That is because of our nicely inflexible rule that if our metal scanners do not know anything that is legal. I suppose that knives and steel weapons cannot be brought into the place, which is very comforting. I say this not to ridicule the Department of Defence-I have the greatest respect for the Department-but because the situation is so limited. The Government announced that the Malabar Anzac Rifle Range is to be sold. Outrage has been voiced by the hundreds of people who use the range but who have not been offered any alternative. A bicentennial world function is to be held there. The Government has not even paid these people the courtesy of telling them what is to happen. When I asked about this matter I received two very interesting answers. I asked: `What about the use of this place?' The brigadier answered: The Anzac Rifle Range is used by the Army on approximately 180 days a year and by the other two Services on around 50 days a year. The fact that the range is used for 230 days a year-leaving aside weekends because one does not get travel allowance on weekends, even in the Army-suggests to me that the range is used on virtually every day of the year. Having spent a number of days in my youth at the range trying to hit targets and missing them most of the time I can tell honourable senators that it is fully occupied. When I asked what had been done for the Army and the other Services in regard to this matter I was told quite solemnly: I believe that the requirement, which is now 180 days for the Army, will be partly taken up by maximising the ranges at Holsworthy and by using other ranges, either at Singleton-- which is 130-odd miles to the north- or Majura, here in the Australian Capital Territory. The Government is to save money by selling a rifle range which cannot be sold as a going concern because, firstly, a lot of the land is reclaimed, unfilled land which has not settled and is a rubbish heap and, secondly, because there are all sorts of restrictions on its use in terms of environmental impact statements. When we asked what arrangements had been made for others the answer consisted of a single word- none. No arrangements have been made for the hundreds of people who use the range. In the first place, the idea is monstrously stupid. The range has a vital role to play, both for the Services and for civilians. It is part of the military and sporting life of the people. It is an area which, of its essence, cannot be developed as residential or industrial land because it has not settled in itself. It would also be fairly lively in terms of stray ammunition. A decision was cavalierly made in the Budget to sell the range without deciding where the Army or the other Services would go and without determining the cost effectiveness of taking people to Singleton. I have to tell the honourable senators, having been a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which visited Singleton, that the people there said: `We have to limit the use of our ranges because the people in Singleton do not like the noise'. On the one hand, when we go to Singleton the people there say `Do not use the ranges any more' and, on the other hand, when we go to Holsworthy the ranges are fully used and making noise. I will deal with one other thing. When we came to an analysis of what was happening to the forces we found some extraordinary things that even Lewis Carroll would not have believed. The Government had set out on a multi-million dollar campaign to get re-enlistment in the Services, particularly the Reserve. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was hopping out of helicopters Lord knows why. Perhaps he was eager to join the Reserve. What was the result? At the end of the public advertising campaign there were fewer people in the Reserve than at the start of the campaign. The Reserve wastage in 1984-85, according to the estimates, was 36 per cent. The wastage in the Australian defence forces is at a high of 12.3 per cent. The officers who are going out of the Services, valuable officers, are causing the gravest trouble. In other words, the Government and the Defence Department are incapable of maintaining the defence forces. I do not want to be a critic of the Defence Department or the Defence Force. Over the years they have served Australia well. I have no doubt in the world that most of the serving officers and public servants in the Defence Department are first class people doing a good job. I have to say that the quality of the evidence given before the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and in the Estimates committee hearings over recent years in this chamber and the way in which material has been forthcoming have been far from satisfactory. That is sad. It is not because we are asking too much but because there is a failure to understand the importance of Parliament and the importance of dialogue in this regard. I rose tonight basically to point out some of the major errors in the system. I could go on all night on this matter. The APCs are a classic demonstration of the muddling, the lack of planning and the lack of doing primary things that is going on. The Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities calls for light mechanised vehicles for our defence forces, not the Leopard tanks that a former Labor Government acquired. The forces want them but we have quite inefficient ones. I report therefore that as we examined these estimates we found a less than satisfactory flow of evidence to us. I hope that the Government, the Ministers and the Department will rectify that in the months ahead. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.33) —I want to ask a question of the Minister which I was not able to ask at the time that the estimates were debated. It relates to the PC9 trainer. By way of introduction, I point out that it came out at the Estimates committee hearing that we had lost $70m on the A10 program, the Australian designed trainer, purely through departmental bungling and incompetence. It was very clear from years back that this would be its fate. The Committee asked the Department why the PC9 was selected over the PC7. The PC7 was perfectly adequate for the needs of a trainer and it was very much cheaper; it was also cheaper to operate through life. I asked: Was any assessment made of the difference in the operational cost over the life of the type? The witness answered: Yes, of course. Any reasonable person therefore would assume that an assessment had been made. I asked: What was the difference? The extraordinary answer came that the difference depended on how one chose to use the aircraft. The witness said: There is a wide range of possibilities that one might examine. A number of initial studies were done that convinced the Department that there was a prima facie case that savings might be made, but that could not be defined until such time as we had an aircraft, and trials had been done to determine precisely how it might be done in service. It is unbelievable that someone could be allowed to make such an answer in public. It is possible to define a series of training roles and to work out the through life cost of each aircraft. The aircraft which was bought, the PC9, is very sophisticated-far too sophisticated for a primary training role, which was the first requirement of it. Now we will have to buy another primary trainer because this one is too sophisticated. An article appeared in the Australian on 5 November entitled `Red faces over changes needed for RAAF trainer'. The article stated: The Government is facing embarrassment over its decision to buy 67 PC-9 . . . Pilatus Trainers . . . following revelations that the aircraft's top speed will be reduced because the undercarriage specified by the Air Force will not fit. According to the article: The RAAF specified that the new trainer should be capable of landing on grass fields. To operate from grass fields it has to have bigger, and presumably low pressure, tyres. To fit the retractable undercarriage into the wing involves, according to the article, either a complete redesign of the wing, for which the estimated cost is $100m, or the use of PC7 tyres. If they are used, they will not retract into the wing. Fairings will have to be built and the performance of the aircraft will be severely compromised. Is this article true? Is there any basis for it? If it is true, why did the Department accept the PC9 if it was so hung up on having an aircraft that could operate from a grass field? If the Department wants something to operate from a grass field, where will it be used? Not one Royal Australian Air Force airfield-certainly none of its training airfields-is unsealed. No one would envisage using a highly sophisticated turbo-prop aircraft such as this from a grass surface. There are the problems of foreign body ingestion into the turbine, propeller damage, damage to the aerofoils from stones being thrown up. There are very big limitations in training utilisation due to the weather as the field may be boggy. Is this article true? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.37) —I am the last one in this place who would pretend that he is an expert on aeroplanes of any kind. I am informed that the primary reasons for choosing the PC9 trainer over the PC7 was that it did what the Air Force wanted it to do and there were better prospects for Australian industry. I am informed that it is not true that another primary trainer will necessarily be needed. An assessment is being made about the training regimes that will be used, but that does not mean that another primary trainer will be necessary. I am also informed that the article is not accurate and that the performance of the PC9 will not be compromised by the changes which, it is admitted, will have to be made to the undercarriage. I understand that Mr Beazley has offered the honourable senator a specific briefing on the PC9. I do not know whether he has taken it up. I might go along with him. I cannot give the honourable senator any more details than that. I will certainly seek more details so that they are on the record in the Hansard. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(8.38) —I have a few comments on the Defence estimates. I thought that before the suspension of the sitting for dinner we had some interesting discussions. The Minister made some very honest observations. At that stage he was speaking of the problems that are now before the Parliament and the Estimates committees. He indicated he had some sympathy with honourable senators who were not receiving answers to questions that fulfilled their requirements. He did not say as much but perhaps we could take from what he said-it is certainly my feeling-that there is now a resistance developing towards questions that honourable senators ask in relation to the Defence Department or many other departments. It is almost a game when members of parliament, who are elected by the people in the various electorates, ask questions. It is felt that they should not be given full answers. There is a definite resistance. I think the Minister went on to say that he had looked at the role of the Estimates committees and questioned whether in the present situation they were of advantage to the Senate, the Parliament and the people of Australia. I would go along with the Minister in questioning whether they are of advantage. I have been involved with Estimates committees for quite a while now and I think that the situation is deteriorating. The Estimates committees are not working as they used to work. For some reason or another there is a resistance by departments to answering questions asked by senators and I think that is very regrettable. Senator Grimes, who is the Minister in the chamber responsible for these estimates at this time, has pinpointed some of the problems. All this indicates an illness that is developing, if it has not already developed, within the system. Senator Hamer, speaking from his experience as a member of the defence forces and now as a senator, indicated the incredible overheads being created by the bureaucracy in the Department of Defence. This is not a question of the Opposition against the Government or the Government against the Opposition; it is a question of facing problems which exist within Australia and within the economy, problems associated with Australia endeavouring to find sufficient money to develop a reasonable defence system. I think Senator Hamer indicated very clearly what a ridiculous situation has developed within the Defence Department. Of course, this did not happen this year, last year or the previous year; we have seen this incredible situation develop with bureaucracy and the Services, I suppose, from when the Defence Department was created and the three Service departments were done away with. The way in which the Defence Department operates now places an incredible load of debt upon the nation. I do not single out the Defence Department in saying that there is an incredible waste of money in administration. I have had much to say about the administration of other Federal departments, such as the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, where hundreds of millions of dollars are spent but nothing gets down to the Aboriginal people, to the nitty gritty. Let me compare the situation within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs with the situation within the Defence Department. Money for Aboriginal affairs does not get down to the nitty gritty, down where the Aboriginal people themselves require it. I believe wholeheartedly that the incredible overloading in the bureaucracy involved in administration within the Defence Department is gulping up the funds that should go into our defence system. The administration of Defence in Australia is far too costly. Irrespective of whether there is a Labor government or a Liberal government, our problem these days is to find sufficient money to develop a defence system that can reasonably defend Australia. I have gone through this before, of course, but I say again that, as a senator for the Northern Territory, I am aware of defence. In the north we see a great need for a strengthening of defence, be it in the Army, the Air Force, the Navy or whatever. The development of Tindal is extremely good. The development of the patrol boat base in Darwin is extremely good. A new airstrip is being built in Derby for the F18, and that is extremely good too. However, I have sympathy for whatever government is in power now because it has to find sufficient funds to service those bases. It is all very well to have a Tindal base, a naval base, and airstrip in Derby; my concern is finding the money to meet the operational expenditure which will encourage young Australians to go into the defence forces. More importantly, my concern is that insufficient money is going into the operational part of the defence forces of Australia. People who are already in the Air Force are unable to have sufficient flying hours. Do not let anyone try to tell me that flying time within the Royal Australian Air Force, be it general training or operational training, is sufficient. Let anyone who claims that tell me how we compare with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries. Let them tell me how the flying hours of our fighter pilots compare with the flying hours of those of our allies. I suggest that they do not compare very well. I wonder too about the training of fighter pilots, the pilots who are to be part of our future defence forces. It seems to me that our pilots who are going to fly the F18s, the Orions and whatever are very limited in numbers. In fact, I wonder whether there are sufficient of them to fly the aircraft we have today. My only comment at the moment is that I am very concerned. Flags are being flown about northern surveillance and about the number of hours that are being flown around the coast of northern Australia. The length of the Northern Territory coastline is some 6,200 kilometres. I suggest that surveillance there now is just a case of flag waving; surveillance of the north is insufficient. Aircraft are unable to fly sufficient operational hours for proper surveillance of the north. I have sympathy for what the Minister said before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, but I think it would be a very brave government or a very brave cabinet these days that said to the Federal departments-the Defence Department, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or whatever-that, in order to provide better security for Australia, we have to look at spending more effectively the very little money that is available for defence. One of the first things we must do is to review the Defence Department and bring about economies, by way of cuts in the Department. The amount of money that is now available for defence is pretty mean, but the money that would be saved within the administration of defence in Australia would trickle down into the operational expenditure which is so necessary. Senator Newman discussed the resignations that have occurred within the defence forces-within the Army, Navy and Air Force. I used to be in the Army. I, like some other senators, have some realisation of the necessity of keeping the numbers in our defence forces up. It is a crying shame to see the number of people within our defence forces who are leaving those forces. They have cost Australia so much to train, yet we are losing those very expert people. They are leaving the defence forces before they are due to retire. I do not think I am imagining it when I say that we have a sickness as far as the defence of Australia is concerned. I think that we have within our power the ability to bring about a remedy. I think the Minister, if one notes what he has said, in his heart, realises the problems in bringing about the adequate defence of Australia. In closing, as I have said, there is a necessity to cut out the malaise within the Defence Department. The malaise, as I see it, is the gulping up of so many funds within the administration in order to keep in operation the incredibly numerous bureaucracy of the Defence Department system in Canberra. I served in the Army some time ago. I regret what I see happening now, because it is ridiculous for Dibb to say that there will be no danger to Australia in 10 years' time, or whatever. No one can know what will happen tomorrow, next week or next year. My experience is that one cannot imagine what is around the next corner. Australia should be prepared tomorrow, not in ten years time. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.54) —I briefly touch on a matter which was announced in the last week and had not been decided two months ago, on 18 and 23 September, when the Estimates committee met. It relates to the transfer of helicopters to the Army from the Air Force. This is a very wrong decision for the Government to have made because it will involve unnecessary duplication of scarce resources. We are not talking about a minor indulgence of $10m, $20m or $30m. I believe the true cost will be between the $150m and $200m, in the fullness of time, over the 25 years in which we will operate these helicopters. What we are talking about, to put it in its clearest terms, is an air transport role. We are not talking about a fighting role for these helicopters. We are talking about battlefield taxis-something to pick up a group of diggers, a section, and shift them from here to there, over a short range. The history of this decision is interesting. It started when the chief of the Army, the Chief of the General Staff, wrote to the Chief of the Defence Force, requesting that the helicopters be transferred from the Air Force to the Army. This is old ground, because not many years ago, when General Dunstan was the Chief of Defence Force Staff-as he was then called-the matter was exhaustively examined and rejected wholeheartedly. The CDF set up a committee to look at it. Mr Chairman, being an old Navy man, you will realise the quality of the committee because it was chaired by a commodore of the Royal Australian Navy, and the members were a captain of the Royal Australian Navy and two commanders, so there was a total of four Navy personnel. There was one member from the Air Force, one from the Army and a civilian member from the Department, totalling seven members in all. After an inquiry the committee recommended by six votes to one-an overwhelming majority-that the transfer not take place. That recommendation was never placed before the Defence Force Development Committee, the Committee which is charged in the Department of Defence with major resource allocations. It should have gone to the DFDC for consideration, but it did not go there. The recommendation of the Committee was taken to the Chiefs of Staff Committee. The two Army members of the Committee rejected the report and voted for the transfer to take place. The Chief of Naval Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff accepted the report. After lunch, when the meeting reconvened, the head of the Navy changed his view and recommended that the transfer take place. I utterly reject the story in the Canberra Times that he did so because he wanted surface combatants bought for the Navy in a few months time. I do not believe that that is a tenable proposition. If the CNS thought of anything, he thought of the maritime reconnaissance squadrons. He thought-if he thought about anything at all-that, if he agreed to the transfer of the helicopters from the Air Force to the Army, maybe the Army would support him when the proposition arose to transfer 10 and 11 squadrons-the long range maritime patrol squadrons-to the Navy. I read his letter which was published in today's Canberra Times-it started me down this track-in which he equated the Army use of the helicopters with the use of naval helicopters. To put it politely, that is an example of very muddled thinking, because what we are talking about in the Army case is the use of an air lift capability-just simple battlefield taxis. In the case of the Navy helicopters, this is a complex weapons system for an anti-submarine warfare role primarily, or an anti-surface ship targeting role. The naval helicopter is part of a very specialised weapons system. It is not a transport role at all. I said that this is the wrong decision because it involves us in enormous duplication. It has also caused another problem because it has affected the morale of the Air Force to a considerable degree. In a situation in which morale in all three Services is at a low ebb, it is stupid management practice to do anything to exacerbate an already bad situation. I commented last week on the behaviour of the Army in the way in which it conducted this debate over the months in public. The way in which the Army behaved reflects no credit on it. It behaved in a childish and petulant way. The way in which it conducted the debate was through letters to the editors of various journals and papers in this country. I am sorry to say that it does show a total inadequacy on the part of the Army to comprehend that it is part of an Australian Defence Force. It does not realise that the Navy and the Air Force are brothers in arms. We have one service in Australia-the Australian Defence Force. I think the other two Services realise it. But the way in which the Army acted in this matter shows that it has not even started to approach the problem. If one talks to members of the Army, one finds that they are quite happy to ride around in United States Army helicopters in a battlefield operation. They are quite happy to use United States Marine Corps helicopters. They are not happy to use RAAF helicopters. The position at present with respect to rotary wing aircraft is that the Army operates only one-that is, the Kiowa, which is the military version of the Bell jet ranger, a light observation helicopter. It is a very light, very simple and very basic single-engined turbine helicopter. The other two service helicopters operated in Australia, apart from the Squirrels that have come in in the last 12 months, are the Bell Iroquois, which is operated by the Air Force, and the Chinook, which provides what heavy lift capability we have, which again is operated by the Air Force. The Iroquois cost us about $490,000 and its replacement, the Blackhawk, will cost more than $10m. The proposal announced by the Government is that the Army will progressively take over the operation of the Iroquois and as the Blackhawks come on line the Army will operate the Blackhawks. It is utterly illogical for the Army to say that and leave the Chinooks with the Air Force. If it wants to argue that case it should be arguing for the Chinooks as well. The Air Force does not want the Chinooks; their sole role is artillery support. They have a heavy lift capability to shift 105-millimetre artillery and ammunition pallets around the battlefield. Within Air Force operations there is no use for the Chinooks. I have never discussed this with the Air Force but I would think that the Air Force would be happy to get out of operating Chinooks because they are so maintenance intensive and so expensive to run. After talking to quite a few Army people I have come to the conclusion, regrettably, that no one, from the generals down to the privates, has any clear idea of what is involved in operating Blackhawks. They talk about the simplicity of transferring the maintenance facilities to the Army and about the simplicity of being able to train pilots. But their whole experience is in operating the Kiowa, which, with respect, is just a toy compared to the Blackhawk. In June this year I spent some time at Sikorsky's factory in Stratford Connecticut going through the engineering, support and pilot training for this helicopter. It is a very complex helicopter. It might be 10 years old but it is a couple of generations on from the Iroquois. It does require sophisticated crews to operate it and very sophisticated maintenance. The Army is putting the case that somehow or other it will be cheaper for it to operate the Blackhawk than for the Air Force. It is being quite dishonest in this. It talks about using warrant officers or sergeant pilots to crew them and it points to the great saving that it thinks will come from that. This instrument flight rules helicopter requires two pilots to operate it, and it needs two very capable pilots at that. The RAAF has difficulty at the moment recruiting pilots. It is recruiting basically from people who have a university entrance standard education. But somehow or other the Army thinks it can achieve the same level of professional competence by using pilots who have a lower educational standard of entry. I do not think that will work out. Another point is that the Air Force has difficulty recruiting pilots when it can offer them the full spectrum of rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft in the Air Force inventory to fly. Most Air Force pilots move through a range of aircraft in their life. The Army can offer pilots promotion only to the level of sergeant or warrant officer and keep them on the one type of aircraft. If the Air Force cannot retain pilots with its system the Army has even less chance of retaining its pilots if it will make them only non-commissioned officers. The real cost will be in maintenance and supporting these helicopters. Special maintenance equipment will have to be brought in for the Blackhawk. We have an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in helicopter and general aircraft maintenance facilities in the Air Force establishments at present. To duplicate them and to set up maintenance facilities for the Army will involve the Australian taxpayer in hundreds of millions of dollars of absolutely wasted expenditure. The generals through to the privates do not understand this point. So one puts it in different terms to them. When one asks `What do you want the helicopters for?' they reply: `We just want to lift this section from here to there-five miles. That is it. We want to get in the helicopter and get out. We are not going to fight from it'. When one says `Fine, we can do that for you. Now do you want to do that or do you want to own the helicopters? If you want to own the helicopters that is all you get. Do you want to get some fire support helicopters such as some Apaches and Cobras, because you do not have any close air support? Do you want some Cobras or Apache tow mounting helicopters for an anti-armour role or a bunker busting?' they say: `Yes, we'll have the Apaches'. With the couple of hundred million dollars the Army has lost by owning these things they won't get close air support which they need. The solution is to leave the helicopters with the Air Force and to take 9 Squadron or what other squadrons are formed with Blackhawks and task them solely to the Army. They should not be based at Garbutt; they should be based at Lavarack. The crews should live, drink and sleep with the diggers. In that way they can be completely integrated with the Army units. They can develop their communications and doctrine and do their tactical development with the Army. The Blackhawk is a very big and complex helicopter. I have spent most of my life mixed up in aviation. It appals me that otherwise intelligent people do not realise the specialised skills that are involved in aviation. The last 70 or 80 years have seen enormous advances in aviation, but they have been bought at a very high price. The lay person who gets into an airliner and flies around the world in 24 hours does not appreciate the difficulties and the expense at which this experience has been purchased. Aviation operates in three dimensions; it is different from operating on the surface of the water or on the surface of the land. The specialists in aviation are in the Air Force. Let us use their skills for the benefit of Australia. This afternoon I was reading the United States Senate Defense Committee's report on Granada. The problems the Army and Marine Corps had with the Army and the Navy in Granada were very interesting. There were difficulties in the lack of commonality of equipment and communications. That is one of the reasons the Army says it wants control of these helicopters. But that problem could be overcome if the Air Force units lived with and were part of Operational Deployment Force or whatever other units the Army wants to operate with them. The air forces of the United Kingdom, Canada, France and New Zealand and the practising professionals-namely, the Israelis, who are always fighting-always use their Air Force, not their Army, to provide this battlefield lift capability for their troops. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Coleman) —Before I call Senator Michael Baume, I remind the Committee again that this is not the opportunity for delivering second reading stage speeches. Senator MacGibbon came very close to being pulled up. Whilst he was relating his comments to a particular series of appropriations, he got very close to giving us a second reading stage speech. That is time wasting; it is time consuming and it is not the role at this stage. Senator MacGibbon —On a point of order: Madam Temporary Chairman, with respect, you were not in the chamber when I started my speech. In my introduction I said that a matter has arisen within the last week which it was not possible for me to ask about two months ago. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I was listening in my office to what the honourable senator said in his opening remarks. I am simply making the point that toward the end of his speech he got right away from the appropriations. I cannot understand how he could possibly say that what the Israeli Government allows its armed forces to do has anything whatsoever to do with what our appropriations are about. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.09) —I want to relate my remarks specifically to some matters relating to this year's expenditures. What on earth is HMAS Success doing in dry-dock? It was commissioned in, I think, April this year. It is now in drydock, having gone to sea once. This is one of the most extraordinary stories of misadventure. The ship cost God knows how much more to build than it should have cost. I simply want to know whether this is a routine normal dry docking after such a short time in the water or whether there is something basically wrong with the ship still-or should I say again. The other question I want to ask relates to the decision to replace Macchis and other Royal Australian Air Force aircraft in fleet support activities. I draw the attention of the Committee to a study entitled the `Hire of aircraft by Defence-study for Senate Estimates Committee E' dated 18 September which dealt with the possibility of this happening. The report states: Areas currently under study or foreshadowed cover 34 Squadron operations, fleet support now performed by lower performance military aircraft (such as Macchi), transport and photo-survey. That was in the context of the report earlier saying: Some support flying provides benefit to Defence air-crew for operational training and development of skills, but other air support flying is routine and makes no such contribution to Defence Force effectiveness. It is not, therefore, necessary to perform all air-support tasks with military air-crews. I just say by way of observation that that totally ignores the benefit to the Royal Australian Navy. There may well be a need for the Navy to have professional Defence Force personnel doing what may well be described as routine flying. It may be of much more significance to the Navy. Certainly the Navy's concerns appear to have been totally ignored in this paragraph. In the next paragraph it says: Given constrained resources, priority should be accorded to operational capabilities and activities. Defence should not undertake tasks which might appropriately be undertaken by Australian Industry with suitable aircraft. . . I ask: To what extend do the new flying arrangements in which civilian personnel fly civilian aircraft diminish the scope for activities which would involve operational training and the development of skills for service airmen? Also, to what extent does it diminish the benefit to the Navy of having exercises which are aimed at improving their skills and capabilities and which involve simply non-professional Defence airmen pretending to attack ships and trying to provide simulated operational environments? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.13) —I am told that the dry docking of HMAS Success is routine. The ship was delivered, it had a shake down cruise and it routinely comes into dry dock and bits and pieces on it are fixed up. I do not have sufficient detail on the second matter raised but I am informed that the Navy has always used some civilian aircraft in support. The study `Hire of aircraft by Defence-study for Senate Estimates Committee E' that the honourable senator referred to is not complete. I assume that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Department will await the completion of that study before final decisions are made, but I will refer the whole matter to the Minister and get a proper answer. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.14) —I would like to bring up the matter of the expenditure of $800,000 for providing 50 hours of flying time to every pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force who is in a desk job. The witness who answered that question did not go into much detail and he left me with the impression that the RAAF was exploring the possibility of doing this. Can the Minister tell me whether it is a firm proposition to provide every pilot in a desk bound job with 50 hours flying a year and, if so, will it be done through the local charter operators? Has no-one had second thoughts about the expenditure of $800,000 for this purpose? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.15) —It is the adviser's understanding that the RAAF is going to try to provide 50 hours of flying time and that it is going to use charter aircraft where that is appropriate, but again we do not have the full details. I will make sure the honourable senator gets those full details. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP F Department of Veterans' Affairs Proposed expenditure-$999,200,000-agreed to. Department of Transport Proposed expenditure, $179,309,000. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.16) —I just raise a couple of very brief matters. Firstly, I want to refer to the annual report of the Department of Transport which outlined the volume of freight moved and the approvals given by the Department for the licences to ship around the coast. I refer to the massive cost consequences of using Australian bottoms in this trade. I will endeavour not to stray beyond the question of the specific relationship to estimates for the current year. That is why I very briefly refer the Committee to an article entitled `Australia's mineral markets future directions' by Mr Don Carruthers in the Mining Review, which maintains that the current policy of the Department as outlined in those approvals given in the annual report is disastrous for Australian industry, particularly that section of industry which seeks to upgrade the value of Australian raw materials by adding value to those raw materials as, for example, happens in the case of aluminium where, instead of just being bauxite exporters, we now are exporting a lot more alumina and aluminium, which involves a massive increase. We export bauxite at $70 a tonne. When it is made up into alumina, it brings $320 a tonne and aluminium brings $1,100 a tonne. Clearly the significance of coastal shipping in this sort of situation where resources from different parts of Australia are brought together to create a finished product is overwhelming. The inhibitions as a result of the activities of this Department insisting on the use of Australian bottoms can be enormous. I make the point very briefly that the CRA group has estimated in the article I referred to that it would save $5m a year if the vessel that takes its alumina from Gladstone to New Zealand and Tasmania operated under conditions competitive with foreign vessels. The article states that having to use Australian vessels to take alumina from the Alcoa of Australia Ltd refinery in Western Australia to Tasmania is roughly twice as expensive. Typical freight rate costs were around $20 per tonne, compared with foreign vessel rates of less than $10 per tonne. The same thing happens with coal-- Senator MacGibbon —It is featherbedding in the maritime unions. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator MacGibbon says, it is a featherbedding of the maritime unions under arrangements that this Department maintains. The point made by Kembla Coal and Coke Pty Ltd was that fuel coal currently shipped to Tasmania by KCC from Port Kembla-I have a specific concern about this because it comes from my region-has a freight cost of between $21 and $27 a tonne, but if it could use foreign vessels for the task, a freight rate of $10 to $14 would be possible. In fact, fuel coal from South Africa can be transported to Tasmania at a cheaper freight rate than from Port Kembla. I suppose the point that emerges from this is that the whole of the funds we provide to this Department to maintain this kind of regulation not only adds massively to the costs of production of Australian products but also inhibits our capacity to upgrade our own raw materials at a competitive price so that we can get the value added benefit in exports. The last example I want to give is iron ore. Hamersley estimates that having to use Australian flag vessels rather than foreign ones to move its iron ore from Dampier to Kwinana adds over $5 to the cost of producing one tonne of iron. Put another way, iron ore can be transported more cheaply from Dampier to Korea than from Dampier to Kwinana, and the same goes for Queensland coal to Western Australia and Korea. As I say, the consequences of the activities of this Department are absolutely disastrous for Australia's long term future and for our capacity to increase our exports at a time of crisis such as we have at present. Quite frankly, I take the view that we would probably benefit massively if the Department ceased to exist and we did not have to deal with this kind of appropriation anyway. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.21) —I have no argument with any of the figures that Senator Michael Baume has given. I cannot check them and I have no argument with them. I merely point out that it is a bit hard to blame the poor old Department. It has been the policy of all governments for 60 years that coastal cargoes should be carried in Australian controlled and Australian flag vessels. Maybe governments ought to do something about it rather than the Department. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(9.22) —During the examination of the Department of Transport's estimates I brought up once again a matter on which I have been trying to get some satisfaction for seven years. I refer to the situation in Australia of not being able to turn left through red lights. Motorists in many States of the United States of America are able to do so. There seem to be more traffic lights per head in Tasmania than there are in any other State. Now that the price of petrol in Tasmania is so high it is about time the Department of Transport followed up on this matter more than it has in the past. I would like to read a reply that I received from the Department. It says: Following the Estimates Committee meeting in September 1985 a detailed reply on this question was provided to Senator Townley. Since that time there have not been any significant developments in Australia or, on the basis of recent inquiries, overseas. Of course there have not been any developments overseas because other countries have already adopted the practice, but this practice has not been adopted in this country. For some reason the Department of Transport has done nothing in the five, six or seven years that I have been trying to get something decided on this matter. The practice of turning left through red lights helps to ease the flow of traffic in areas which are restricted by traffic lights. The Minister seems to think that this is a laughing matter and I suppose it does sound a little trivial. However, it is something that could well be of assistance to a great number of people in this country. The reply also states: Senior staff of the Federal Office of Road Safety would be pleased to discuss this matter with Senator Townley if he wishes. The point is that there is not much to be discussed. The Department only has to look at what is done in other parts of the world and follow that up. I just ask why some action is not being taken on this matter. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.24) —I do not think it is a laughing matter. If it saves money, I think that is fair enough. I must say that, in view of the terrible jokes that have been told in this place tonight, the thought of a conservative like Senator Townley wanting us all to turn left through red lights really amuses me. I am told by the officers that not everywhere else in the world does it. I am also told-- Senator MacGibbon —It is a State matter. Senator GRIMES —It is largely a State matter. From my experience, trying to get the States to agree on anything in this country, especially turning left, is going to be very difficult to do. But I will take this matter seriously and I will try to get a proper answer for the honourable senator. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(9.25) —I know it is not done everywhere else in the world, but it is done in some areas, such as New York and California, where the density of traffic is much higher than it is here. It is done for a very good reason. It saves people a lot of money in terms of fuel; it prevents them from getting frustrated at traffic lights and, of course, frustration leads to lots of accidents. I sincerely say to the Department that after seven years it should have been able to make some decision or at least reached some decision with the State governments. If it cannot get a decision in seven years, I really think that the person who is looking after this matter in the Department is not doing his job. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Aviation Proposed expenditure, $460,113,000. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.26) —I would like to note that the Department of Aviation is the only Commonwealth department that found itself unable to find out the number and causes of invalidity retirements. Either the Department has been so diminished in terms of staffing or it is trying to make some quaint point that I do not understand, but I think it should explain itself. Senator Puplick —And apologise. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Yes, as Senator Puplick says, and apologise. As the Department may be aware, a great deal of public comment has been made about the fact that in large elements of the Public Service there has been a greater tendency for people to retire through invalidity than to retire on reaching retirement age. The suggestion that this information is not readily available seems to me to be fairly quaint. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(9.27) —I asked a series of questions of the Department of Aviation during the Estimates committee hearings which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The questions and answers read as follows- QUESTION 1 List the aircraft owned and/or leased by the Department. 3 Fokker F28 Aircraft Registrations VH-ATD VH-ATE VH-ATG 6 Gulfstream Commander Aircraft Registrations VH-LTI VH-LTJ VH-LTK VH-LTM VH-LTN VH-LTO 6 Beechcraft Bonanza Aircraft Registrations VH-CAB VH-CAD VH-CAE VH-CAG VH-CAQ VH-SGS QUESTION 2 Detail any aircraft bought or sold or proposed to be bought or sold this financial year 1986-87 No aircraft have been bought or sold There is a proposal which is still tentative relating to the exchange of an F28 for a small jet aircraft to fulfil the practice flying function The venture is being reappraised as to its potential financial viability in the light of fuel pricing changes, the devaluation of the Australian dollar and imminent imposition of landing charges at Commonwealth airports. QUESTION 3 Hours planned to be flown by each aircraft type. The flying program in broad terms for 1986-87 breaks down as follows: F28: 2462 total flying hours Gulfstream Aircraft: 4994 total flying hours Bonanza Aircraft: 2810 total flying hours. QUESTION 4 Whose rule is baggage limit? Departments? The Air Navigation Orders do not impose any explicit limit on the amount of baggage which may be carried by passengers into an aircraft cabin. The only relevant requirement is that if standard weights for passengers are used by an airline then any hand luggage which exceeds 4 kgs must be weighed. In addition airlines must make provision for carry-on luggage to be properly restrained within the cabin. Australian Airlines, Ansett and East West Airlines agreed recently to introduce and use a baggage measurement device which ensures that passengers take with them only items which are capable of being properly secured on board. It is the Department's view that this is an initiative to be lauded since it will minimise the possibility of injury due to unsecured baggage in the event of an accident. However, the precise limits on size used by the airlines have been determined by reference to the dimensions of overhead lockers and under-seat storage in their aircraft. The Department of Aviation had no part to play in this. QUESTION 5 Training hours in each Departmental aircraft and also hours of training in large jet aircraft by type and where training undertaken. (a) Departmental Aircraft 1986-87 F28-1121 hrs G1000-3276 hrs Bonanza-309 hrs (b) Large jet aircraft 1986-87 B747-36 hrs-Australia B767-48 hrs-12 hrs USA, 36 Hrs Australia A300-24 hrs-Malaysia B727-36 hrs-Australia B737-36 hrs-Australia DC9-24 hrs-Australia Bae 146-12 hrs-Australia QUESTION 6 Number of pilots and their grades (how many of each)? Senior Examiners-of-Airmen (Regular Public Transport... 4 Examiners-of-Airmen (Regular Public Transport)... 17 Senior Airways Surveyors (Regular Public Transport)... 4 Airways Surveyors (Regular Public Transport)... 19 Senior Examiners-of-Airmen (General Aviation)... 10 Examiners-of-Airmen (General Aviation)... 51 Senior Airways Surveyor (General Aviation)... 2 Airways Surveyors (General Aviation)... 10 Chief Airways Surveyor (Department Flying Unit)... 1 Senior Airways Surveyor (Department Flying Unit)... 4 Airways Surveyor (Department Flying Unit)... 2 Test Pilots... 2 Flight Test Pilots... 5 Sport Aviation Inspectors... 4 QUESTION 7 Cost of loss of licence insurance and who paid to? ANSWER In 1985-86 the Department of Aviation paid loss of licence insurance totalling $521,278 in respect of Air Traffic Controllers ($452,169) and staff pilots ($69,109 eg Examiners of Airmen and Airways Surveyors.) Payments to individual companies in 1985-86 were as follows: (a) $4,004 to Aviation Mutual Insurance; (b) $69,109 to Australian Air Pilots Mutual Benefit Funds; (c) $83,543 to Aviation Mutual Benefit Fund; (d) $364,622 to Minet Australia Ltd. QUESTION 8 How much does re-grading of licences cost? (How many pilots involved?) Only Airline Transport Pilot Licence Holders need to renew their licence by flight test. At present there are 19 Department Examiners-of-Airmen who hold this class of licence. They undertake renewal flight testing twice a year on each occasion using approximately 2 1/2 hours of aircraft time. This flying is included in the answer to question 5 and would cost approximately $6,500 for each examiner this year. QUESTION 9 Training procedures at Bankstown to be changed following last crash? There are no plans to change training procedures at Bankstown. It appears that the most recent crash at Bankstown may have been caused by the pilot attempting to return to the aerodrome after the engine failed. In consequence it is timely to issue a reminder to pilots of the dangers in attempting this `turn-back' procedure. This will be done by means of a Safety Promotion Bulletin which will be issued to all pilots in the near future. QUESTION 10 Does the Department take advantage of any recycled computer paper? ANSWER The Department does not use recycled computer paper for its main ADP processing system, nor is it aware of any contractors available to Government Departments which supply recycled paper. Individual user areas may decide to use the other side of paper for drafts of `non-sensitive' documents produced on local printers. A number of user areas arrange for recycling of `non-sensitive' computer printout paper which is no longer required. Out of date forms and stationery are sent to Koomarri for processing into small note pads. Senator TOWNLEY —Question No. 7 in that list concerns the cost of loss of licence insurance and who it is paid to. This question relates to the loss of licence insurance in respect of examiners of airmen who have pilots licences. The insurance costs the Department of Aviation $452,000 for air traffic controllers and nearly $70,000 for staff pilots. Why does the Government carry insurance for these people when it does not carry insurance for the loss of jobs for anybody else in the Public Service? I thought it was against the philosophy of the Government to carry insurance of this type. How does the Department decide which companies it will insure with? How many people have claimed insurance under this arrangement? Have any of the funds that are carrying the insurance spoken to the Department in respect of lifting the rates because of the high rate of resignation of people within the Department? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.29) —In respect of Senator Michael Baume's question and lack of an answer, I am told that it is indeed difficult in the Department of Aviation to get the detail he wants but that the Department will get it. On being asked why it is difficult when every other department can do it, the answer was: `They must have better systems than ours, so we are going to investigate those systems'. The loss of licence insurance is part of an industrial agreement, Senator Townley. I will have to take on notice the question about the basis of choice of the companies, and I will find that out for the honourable senator. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(9.30) —I ask why other members of the Public Service do not have that type of agreement also. If the pilots can get it, why cannot the rest of the Public Service get some kind of insurance? Maybe then we would not have these people who seem to be retiring more easily than they should. The Minister did not give any indication as to whether he knew how many people had claimed this kind of insurance prior their retirement. Could he take that question on notice? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.31) —I will have to take that on notice. The reason why no other section of the Public Service has it, I suppose, is because there is no agreement. It is a catch-22 situation. I will find that out also for the honourable senator. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.31) —What is the Department doing with respect to safety, and particularly with respect to air hostesses? Passengers on Australian airlines have been harassed for the last four years at least with respect to hand luggage. If a passenger sits behind the bulkhead in the front row, he cannot carry any hand luggage at all. In the last six months or so there have been checks made on passengers as they are leaving the waiting rooms to board the aircraft. They are forced to put their bags through all sorts of mechanical devices to see that they do not exceed certain dimensions. This seems to have been initiated by the stewards and stewardesses and it is certainly causing a lot of harassment for air travellers, as the Minister would know. I do not doubt that he has been the object of this on various occasions, as we all have. This also has very real significance for the tourist industry, particularly if tourists from overseas buy first class tickets. They cannot understand why they are abused by some mere employee of a company when all they do is seek to go from Sydney to Melbourne. What is the Department's position? Does it support and encourage the air hostesses and stewards along this path? Why does the Department not recognise that the root cause of the problem is the inability of the airline to look after people's baggage? People will not carry baggage on board an aircraft if they have a safe and secure way of putting it in the aircraft hold. It is because the airline companies lose baggage, break baggage and do other sorts of infuriating things to baggage that people choose to carry it on board. The solution is not to harass the passengers but to harass the airline companies, if one is going to be in the business of harassing them. I want to get back to the subject of the stewards and stewardesses because it seems to me that we are the victims of some sort of political pressure game to pay them more and more money on the ground of safety. There is no question that the cabin attendants do have a safety role, but it is a limited role. I am interested in what the Department is doing with respect to emergency procedures. When I was in England some years ago I was told that one of the contributing factors to the loss of life from that tragic incident at Manchester when a Boeing 737 caught fire and when so many passengers lost their lives was the fact that the stewardesses told the passengers, when the aborted take-off had been completed and the aircraft had come to rest, to stay in their seats with the seat belts done up. Consequently a period of time was lost when, if the evacuation procedures had been initiated, a large number of lives, or all the lives in that aircraft, could have been saved. I have twice been on board an Australian aircraft when an aborted take-off has occurred. I want to know whether the Department has considered the procedures that presently apply. On both those occasions of aborted take-off the passengers were told to stay in their seats with their seat belts done up. The reason for aborting the take-off on these occasions was simply a compressor stall in high cross wind conditions, but had we had a fire or something like that it would have been a different matter. It seems elementary that if take-off is aborted the instantaneous response should be to evacuate the aircraft. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(9.35) —I also would like to make reference to this matter because it has become quite a nuisance over the last few months. It seems to me that the rules of the Department have not changed since the years of the DC3. The young people in this chamber, such as Senator Puplick, would not remember the DC3s. In those days the rule was that passengers' carry-on baggage must not exceed 10 pounds, which, roughly converted, is 4 kilograms. I know what the rule is now. At the moment any passenger who boards an aeroplane, whether it be an international passenger in first class, business class or economy class, can take on the same amount, but the first class passengers pay half as much again for the air fare as the economy passengers. Why the Department has let this kind of thing go on and on, and why the Independent Air Fares Committee allows the airlines to charge half as much again for a first class fare when they do not give those first class passengers half as much again in benefits, I do not know. I have recently been tempted to write to the Independent Air Fares Committee-- Senator Zakharov —You get a great deal more comfort. Try going overseas by economy. Senator TOWNLEY —All the overseas tickets I buy are economy tickets because I have used up all my allowance. I believe the Independent Air Fares Committee should bring this to the notice of the airlines, if they have not already had it brought to their notice. It is quite ridiculous that when there is space available in the front of aircraft we cannot carry on a sensible amount of hand luggage. I make it clear that I know the baggage limit rule is not the rule of the Department. I have been informed that that is so. The precise limits in size which the airlines impose are to be determined by reference to the dimensions of the overhead lockers and under-seat storage in the aircraft. I am told that the Department of Aviation has no part to play in this. I am sorry if I am taking the Minister's reply from him. But I believe that the Department should allow people who are travelling first class, and who may be travelling unexpectedly, to carry on more luggage than they are presently allowed. At the moment we have the tidiest front areas of aircraft in the world. The Department must not give me the rubbish about safety. Whenever the Department says that something is a matter of safety, I know that it is either too lazy or incompetent and is not able to handle the situation, because that is always what it falls back on. This is not a matter of safety; it is a matter of the Department not having sat down with the airlines and told them that in certain areas passengers can carry on certain amounts, and in other areas passengers can carry on more. I think it is time the Department did something about this. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.38) —Senator Townley did partly answer the question for me, but then he went on and made an extraordinary statement for him. He wants the Department to tell the airlines how to run their business. Usually he comes in here and he says he wants the Department to stop running their business. Senator Townley —No, it is the 4-kilogram limit that I think the Department should deal with. Senator GRIMES —But it is not the Department's limit. Senator Townley —Excuse me, but it is. Senator GRIMES —No, the air navigation orders do not impose any explicit limit on the amount of baggage which may be carried. The only relevant requirement is that if standard weights for passengers are used by an airline, any hand luggage in excess of 4 kilograms must be weighed. It only has to be weighed; nothing else. The airport staff never weigh it when I go on board because there is always more than 4 kilograms there, and anyway I am not a standard weight! In addition, airlines must make provision for carry-on luggage to be restrained properly within the cabin. Senator Townley —There is stacks of room in the cabin. Senator GRIMES —Hang on! Australian Airlines, Ansett Airlines of Australia and East-West Airlines agreed recently to introduce and use a baggage measurement device which ensures that passengers take with them only items which are capable of being properly secured on board. It is the Department's view that this is an initiative which should be lauded because it will minimise the possibility of injury due to unsecured baggage. Senator Townley says that that is nonsense. Okay, but it is still not the Department's rule. All I can say is that, having travelled on some overseas airlines which have no limits and on which you have everything, including chooks, sitting all over you, I have some sympathy with the local airlines. However, the precise limits on size used by the airlines are determined by reference to the dimensions of overhead lockers and underseat storage areas on aircraft. The Department of Aviation had no part to play in this. I take on board that Senator Townley says that the Department should tell the airlines that they should allow first class passengers to take more baggage on board and allow everyone to carry more. I will talk to the Department about that, but it is a complete reversal of the usual advice that we get from Senator Townley in this place. Senator Michael Baume —The airlines reckon it is a departmental regulation. Senator GRIMES —I know they do; the airlines say that it is due to departmental regulations, which is clearly not true. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(9.41) —I realise quite fully what the departmental rule is. The airlines have a global weight for each passenger. I am saying that first class passengers, or passengers at the front, get half as much space again and therefore should be able to take on board not only a few extra kilograms but a lot of extra weight to make up for the fewer people in that part of the plane. It is time that something was done because a lot of tourists are being harassed. I have seen it happen in Hobart. People have had to go back and check in luggage. The rest of the world is trying to get people to carry their luggage on board but here we are going the other way. I believe Australian work practices are out of step once again. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.42) —I do not expect the Minister to make a response but I will feel much better for having said this. I was climbing off a Qantas Airways Ltd flight recently and on to a flight from Sydney to Perth with Ansett Airlines of Australia. In one hand I had a regulation sized briefcase and in the other hand I had a plastic bag containing a modest quantity of duty free goods. The air hostess at the gate refused me permission to carry the plastic bag on board. Senator Grimes —She didn't like the look of you. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I do not know about that; she chased me down the runway; I came out with both hands fighting. When I climbed on board the aircraft, I found that it was a Boeing 767. There were 30 first class seats but only 14 occupied. I find it absolutely bizarre and absurd that airlines allow their employees to harass, intimidate and terrify innocent passengers such as me in those circumstances. I find it disappointing that the Department lauds the procedures presently being used. It is unfortunate that the Department has not made it clear to the public that the machine through which one is required to put one's bag to test its size is not as a result of a departmental regulation. Without exception, the air hostesses and cabin attendants blame the Department and not the airlines. I find that regrettable, to say the least. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.44) —I wonder whether the Minister can find out for me what it costs the Department to provide the current bills that are being issued to general aviation aircraft for the use of airways and airfield services. In case the Minister does not fully understand it, I will explain that in previous times light aircraft and privately owned aircraft had to pay an air navigation charge which has risen from about $80 for a light aircraft about 12 years ago to about $800 or $900 a year now. There has been a 17 per cent rise in that charge this year. Under the new scheme introduced, the air navigation charge has been cut to 50 per cent of its former value and aircraft are billed for every operation they make. A minimal operation from a secondary airport around Australia probably costs around $11.70. In general terms, for someone who flies very little, instead of paying $800 or $900 a year in air navigation charges, the figure would be about $2,000 for a quite low level of operation in a 12 month period. The frightening thing for the aviation community is that this is only the beginning. If we have a 17 per cent rise on that, as we have on air navigation charges this year, no one will be able to fly. But I would like to know what it costs the Department every month to prepare, type out and post this bill for the $11.70 charge? The way that the Department operates, I would think that it probably costs about $21 or $22 to prepare. Whilst I am talking on this matter, has the Department considered the chicanery and corruption that this is producing in otherwise honest people? It is now common practice around the country that people give no details when they go flying. They give no sign on the radio. They just take off and go. People are using false call signs. Instead of using the registration letters on the aircraft in the way everyone has done since time began, they now use Mickey Mouse fictional call signs. Of course, most aircraft are always out of sight and just in radio communication so there is no way of policing this. As an old airman, I am appalled at the way that this is coming into the aviation community. Of course, it has the consequence of a degradation of safety, the very thing that we do not want to encourage in the aviation community. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.46) —The first one is a good question. I was just getting a very complicated answer from an adviser who tells me that the bills this year to which Senator MacGibbon refers are dummies to test the system. It is a good question and I will find out the answer. I do not know anything about the chicanery and corruption but I will find out about that too. No one here knows about it. But I am surprised that honourable people like Senator Townley and Senator MacGibbon, who fly around the country, would act in such a way. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(9.47) —I assure the Committee that under no circumstances would I use a wrong call sign, besides which my voice is recognised in Tasmania. There are a couple of things I would like to bring up. One is about the cost of regrading licences for pilots. I asked how much it costs to re-grade licences and how many pilots were involved. The answer given is that only airline transport pilot licence holders need to renew their licence by flight tests. At present there are 19 examiners of airmen who hold this class of licence. They undertake renewal flight testing twice a year, on each occasion using about two and a half hours of aircraft time. The answer states that this flying is included in the answer to my question No. 5 and that it would cost approximately $6,500 for each examiner this year. I want to know who tests the examiners of those airmen. This testing of pilots within Australia is something that I have criticised for many years and it is something that I believe is being taken too far. There seems to be a huge amount of flying done in the course of testing. I will not go through all the details of the hours given in answer to my question No. 5 but I do note that the Department does not now take its staff to the United States of America, mostly because of the drop in the Australian dollar; a lot of it is being done here. It is worth reading out the number of training hours for each departmental aircraft. The figures for departmental aircraft in 1986-87 are 1,121 hours for the F28 and 3,276 hours for the G1000. These aircraft one cannot fly for nothing; they are very expensive to fly around. The figure for the Bonanza was 309 hours. We go on to see that training is carried out not only in those kinds of aircraft, but also in Boeing 747s and Boeing 767s. Some of that is undertaken in the United States, although I do not know why. It states that 12 hours was undertaken in the United States and 36 hours here. Training on the A300 is done in Malaysia. The figures are 36 hours for the Boeing 727, 36 hours for the Boeing 737, 24 hours for the DC9 and 12 hours for the BAe146, all of which was done in Australia. We should not let these amounts go by without some comment. I believe that too much money is being spent on training. I suppose that the Department will say again that it is because of safety. When Sir Reginald Ansett was alive he told me the same thing. Whenever the Department wants to get something through the Parliament or without criticism it blames safety. Airline staff are now doing the same thing. It has taken a long time but they have learnt quite a lot from the Department. Maybe this is starting to sound like a second reading speech. It is not meant to be. I apologise if it is. I would like the Minister to say whether some saving can be made in the huge expense involved in training airline examiners. After a crash at Bankstown Airport recently there was some criticism of the Department's training procedures at the airport. I have been informed that no changes in the training procedures are to be implemented at Bankstown. A publication called a safety promotion bulletin will be issued telling airline pilots not to turn back when they have an engine failure. That is something one is told on the very first flight one makes. Is the Department going to start charging for things like the bulletin? Considering the Department is always talking about safety, why has it cut out the free issue of safety bulletins? Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.52) —I want to raise the matter of the air training college which is said is to be established at Pialligo. Why has the area in Pialligo been chosen for the air training college? Would any other site in Canberra be more suitable, perhaps a site nearer the more traditional educational institutions in the Australian Capital Territory? The siting of the college at Pialligo would destroy the integrity of the area and would totally destroy the slightly rural nature of the industries which exist in the area. I want to know what the real cost of the college would be and the actual dimensions of the area required for the college as against the area that has been indicated as being resumed for the purposes of the college. In particular, we are entitled to know exactly how much it will cost to drain the area, given that it is on a river bed and that considerable additional cost would be involved to construct in the area compared with just about any other area one could think of. Pialligo is the run-off site for the present airport, in which case the amount of water that lies in the area is considerably in excess of what normally would be the case. After the rains we had last week the amount of water in the area would be considerable. The cost which would be incurred in placing the site in Pialligo is greatly in excess of what it would cost to place it in just about any other part of Canberra one could think of. On what basis is it essential to destroy absolutely the integrity of the Pialligo area when it would cost so much more to place the college there than somewhere nearer the Campbell offices, nearer the Fairbairn Airport at the other end of the present airport? Why does it have to be in Pialligo? Why the need to resume so much land which would preclude people from developing the businesses which presently exist there, which will put people out of work and destroy businesses and when the college could be built on another site? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.55) —I inform Senator Townley that the safety promotion bulletin will continue to be free of charge. Senator Townley asks where savings could be made in the training of transport pilot licence holders. I do not know. At the moment it depends on the availability of pilots, time and aircraft. I will have to get details. As to Senator Reid's question, a whole lot of complex questions are involved. I do not know anything about it. It is the first time I have heard about it. The departmental officers here do not have sufficient detail. I will take the question on notice. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.56) —About $100,000 is allocated in this year's Budget to develop plans for this site. By developing that site land would be taken away from a whole range of semi-rural industries which are being developed in the Pialligo area, which are viable at present and which will not be so if the college goes ahead on the site. I could think of a whole number of sites in Canberra which would be suitable for the college. I know that students would have to go to the airport for certain things, but how often would they go to the airport? Why could they not travel from a site at Bruce to the airport and be nearer the other educational institutions? Why is the Department of Aviation determined to destroy the integrity of the Pialligo area by going ahead with the college in the area? If the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) wants to leave it to another time to discuss, I am quite happy to do so but I want to know why the Government is prepared to spend so much more money developing the site because of the water problems that exist there rather than putting the same facilities somewhere else which would not cost nearly as much. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.57) —I will have to get the details from elsewhere. I understand from the officers here that the matter has been to various committees and all over the place. I will certainly direct the honourable senator's views to the Minister and get an answer as soon as possible. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Territories Proposed expenditure, $529,924,000. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.57) —I indicated to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) that I wanted to ask a number of questions about matters associated with garbage collection in the Australian Capital Territory. Has the Minister had an opportunity for a briefing in connection with the problems of Australian Capital Territory household garbage collection? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.58) —I am informed that the officers here were not told that Senator Lewis had put in any questions at all. I am sorry about that. Someone's head will roll. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.58) —I indicated to the Minister that rather than put a question on notice it might be a lot easier if I were to ask it at this level. I ask the Minister, for starters: What would be the unit cost of the collection of garbage from one household in the Australian Capital Territory? I gather from the shaking of the Minister's head that that information is not currently available. Is the Minister able to tell us what the award wages are for garbage collectors in the Australian Capital Territory? To assist him, I understand that garbage collectors in the Australian Capital Territory work shifts of about four hours per day for four days a week, making a 16-hour week, that for that their salary is approximately $370 and that they receive three months long service leave after 15 years. Is the Minister able to confirm that to me? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.59) —I gather from the advisers here that the award is that a darg is set for so much work to be done. As the honourable senator knows, in the Australian Capital Territory and other places they run like mad and get finished early. The award covers the amount of work they do rather than the number of hours they work. I am not sure about the long service provisions. I know that there has been a dispute about that recently. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.59) —I understand that, as you say, they run like mad and are able to get through their work much more quickly than perhaps would have been anticipated when the award was fixed. My understanding is that some of these people have other positions. Some of them may even have positions with the Public Service. I also understand that a large number work two shifts. In other words, they are able to get through two rounds of garbage collection and so, instead of receiving $370 per week, they are receiving twice that amount, $740 per week. Would those people be entitled to six months' long service leave at the end of fifteen years' service? In other words, was their claim in the recent dispute that not only should they be entitled to two salaries but also they should get two lots of long service leave? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania)(Minister for Community Services) (10.01)-I am informed that the working arrangements are between the contractor and the garbage collectors and the Government pays the contractor. I will find out the answer to Senator Lewis's question. It would seem to me that if someone had two jobs in theory he may be entitled to two amounts of long service leave. This is a matter which I think is quite fascinating and I will find out for Senator Lewis. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.02) —I will look at a couple of aspects that worry me about the Department of Territories. One of these is the current process-perhaps it is not even happening-for the review of ordinances. During the Estimates Committee hearing we were told that a law revision section in the Legislation and Legal Policy Branch was the area in which ordinances were being examined and prepared for change. Basically, this area in the Department of Territories is occupied by putting out raging bushfires. Apparently it does not have a comprehensive overhaul program for the large number of outdated ordinances which apply in the Australian Capital Territory. I can give the Committee a few examples. I would like to get a feeling from the Department-this is a question to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes)-on the time scales for revision. Can the Minister tell me when the trading hours, noise pollution, and tobacco ordinances, which are still matters of public controversy, are due to be reviewed? We have had promises and deadlines which have by now expired. There have also been considerable delays in essential amendments to the Air Pollution Ordinance and I would like to know when we expect to get any results on that. We have the outstanding problem which led to the garbage strike, which has been mentioned by Senator Lewis, over the portability of long service leave. I am not certain that it is any more than a promise. When will it actually appear in legislation? Just before the garbage collectors dispute the taxi drivers had to threaten to discontinue taking government work to get fare increases which were promised three months earlier. Apparently, that happened as a result of industrial action. It seems that the Department is constantly on the brink of disaster. One of the Government promises we heard earlier was that people from the Attorney-General's Department were to transfer some drafting people to the Department of Territories. I would like to know how this program of transfer of drafting people is actually getting on. We are, in fact, told that we can expect another 25 ordinances and eight sets of regulations in the next six months but we do not know exactly what they will deal with and there are still these overhanging problems which are causing a considerable amount of disquiet in the community. It would be useful if the Government could carry out some type of efficiency scrutiny with the Department to try to determine exactly how this process is operating and also to try to develop some type of people and service oriented approach within the section of the Department which deals with social welfare. I would like to know from the Minister, who should have a fair idea of this type of problem, what plans are afoot to try to develop a more personal and service oriented approach in social service areas. A number of problems have come out of questioning on the Estimates on this occasion and on the last occasion relating to legal matters. Problems still remain in relation to the early end of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. One real problem is that we do not appear to have seen any final accounts, reports or statements from this Authority. When does the Minister expect to get any figures on what appears to be a fairly straightforward and simple operation? At least we were told so in the Belconnen Mall affair. It is a problem if we have all these ordinances hanging over us and a number of outstanding legal problems in relation to the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, particularly the redundancy payments. Apparently, the court has refused to buy into the argument whether the redundancy payments should be arranged under Public Service determination 509/77. Have those people been paid or handled properly? Is the Canberra Commercial Development Authority effectively laid to rest at this stage? We really need to know something about this matter. In the Estimates hearings I also raised the matter of the illegal towing away of the car of the anti-drug campaigner, Mr Skrijel. Senator Grimes —Is that not a matter for another place? This is the Committee of the Whole. Senator VIGOR —I point out to the Minister that we have this large Department which has municipal activities. I believe it is something which needs to be brought out here. Senator Grimes —You do not have to turn this into a local government chamber. You will be talking about the dog catcher next. Senator VIGOR —That is what the Minister has become-a Minister for dog catching and garbage collection. That is the real problem we have in the Department of Territories. Instead of self-government we have this type of situation. Senator Grimes —That is your fault. You are the butcher of self-government. Senator VIGOR —That is not true but we will not call each other names. There are now no elected representatives, just an advisory committee. There is nobody to ask these questions but people like me in the Senate. That is a serious situation. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Vigor, you are entitled to ask questions about the Estimates. You are not entitled to ask questions at large. They must be related to some item in the Estimates. Senator VIGOR —I take your point, Mr Chairman. In fact, all the money in the Department of Territories is spent on this type of material. The types of questions that I was asking are central to the core and operation of the Department. Unfortunately, this is exactly the type of stuff that is normally done in State legislatures and local government areas. I have one last question. I want to look at the decision that was made in the Budget, which has now been reversed, to tear up the contracts for fixed interest home loan repayments. Apparently, other people in the system had loan contracts in which there were rise and fall clauses. I would like to know whether the Department got around to charging those people the extra interest where there was a rise and fall clause in their contracts. I believe that after all the fuss this has been forgotten. If this is the case, it is a matter of revenue for this Department. I will not be very long on this, but I also understand that people who have tried to pay back more that the contract amount now have been asked to sign new contracts which have rise and fall clauses in them. If this is happening it is not very useful from a revenue raising point of view because it will certainly discourage people from paying off their original contracts. It seems to me we have serious problems. That is why I am pursuing these matters. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.10) —I am sorry I lost my cool, Mr Chairman, but I firmly believe that the appropriations debate is a time to talk about the appropriations and it is a pity that the debate is abused in this way. I have had warning that Senator Kilgariff is going to do something like that too and that is a shame. There are a large number of ordinances in the Australian Capital Territory. They are carefully monitored, I am told. I cannot give details of when those various ordinances are up for review. To some extent the Department of Territories is in the hands of the Attorney-General's Department, which has to fit in such reviews. For the Canberra Commercial Development Authority the accounts are with the auditors now. The Department of Territories, the Australian Government Solicitor and the Public Service Board are now determining the specific redundancy entitlements of former employees of the Authority and we will finalise these arrangements as quickly as possible. Financial statements setting out the details of the operation of the Belconnen Mall from 1 July 1985 to 27 February 1986 by the Authority and from 28 February to 26 March 1986 by the Department of Territories have been prepared and, as I said, are with the Audit Office. The statements will be presented to the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) as soon as possible. I did not catch the bit, when I lost my temper, about someone being towed away but I will refer that to the Minister. I am told that with those contracts with rise and fall clauses in them the rises have been applied. I do not know about the details given by Senator Vigor concerning whether people who want to pay off their loans are asked to sign new contracts with rise and fall clauses in them. I just find it interesting that Senator Vigor can defend a situation in which people are paying interest rates of 4 per cent per annum when everyone else is paying 15 per cent per annum, but that is his business. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.12) —In view of the response to my questions regarding the tendering for contracts for the supply of goods to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands during the hearings of Estimates Committee F, I would like to clarify some matters in relation to the general tender process and the specific instance in which I am interested. On pages 384 and 385 of the Hansard record of 18 September the relevant discussion is set out, in which a Department of Territories officer advised that a ministerial decision was made that the shipping companies of Mr John Clunies-Ross, Sr, would not be permitted to tender for the supply of goods to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. As can be seen, the officer could not say why the ministerial decision to refuse Clunies-Ross contracts had been taken. It is my understanding that, except in certain exceptional circumstances, contracts for the supply of goods or services to the Government must be called publicly. As I understand it, the contracts involving shipping supplies to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands do not fall into the classes of exclusions, which include things such as shipping military or classified equipment, or which apply when there is an urgent need to complete a contract which would not allow time for a public tender to be called. It is apparent that the decision to deny Clunies-Ross contracts was not taken on a commercial basis either, as the freight rates he was offering were extremely competitive. He could freight goods to the islands at a much lower rate than could other companies, because his line had a very good business freighting goods from Singapore to Perth but often had little cargo on the trip to Singapore, so it had plenty of space to carry goods which could be delivered to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I understand that price, naturally enough, is a primary factor to be taken into account in assessing tenders for government contracts. On this basis Clunies-Ross contracts should certainly have been considered. I realise that there are other factors to be taken into account when tenders are received from prospective suppliers of goods or services, such as the record of the tenderer, reliability and such, but on all accounts the Clunies-Ross line appears to have been a perfectly reasonable candidate for the awarding of the tender. Yet here we have an admission by a departmental officer that the Minister for Territories at the time, Mr Uren, made a decision, which was followed through by his successor, Mr Scholes, that Clunies-Ross company tenders would not even be considered. Having followed this matter through with other people, including Mr Clunies-Ross himself and his former shipping agents, I have come to the conclusion that Clunies-Ross was, to say the least, discriminated against by Ministers of the Australian Government in relation to the commercial transactions of his companies. Indeed, the Ministers and the Department involved were quite blatant-going so far, I understand, as marking tender documents to state that tenders from Clunies-Ross companies would not be accepted. Honourable senators may be aware that the Clunies-Ross companies subsequently went broke, and I think it is reasonable to assume that the fact that the companies were denied the right to tender for these government contracts would certainly not have helped the financial fortunes of the companies. So the situation is that the companies of one Australian citizen were singled out for this treatment, apparently not on any commercial basis but at the whim of a Minister. I understand that, because it was a ministerial rather than an administrative decision, appeals which were made by Clunies-Ross to the Commonwealth Ombudsman were not able to be dealt with by that authority. One has to ask what could have motivated the Minister in taking this decision. The answer is fairly apparent. It was the Minister's determination, for whatever reason, to get Clunies-Ross off the islands. Indeed, I understand that that was the message communicated to Clunies-Ross, his shipping company and legal representatives when they attempted to find out why he had been blackbanned. So it seems that, in order to achieve a political objective, the Minister was prepared to use his muscle as a Minister of the Crown to drive an Australian citizen as far as bankruptcy. I would like to know, and no doubt Mr Clunies-Ross would like to know as he was never informed of it, under what authority the Minister took the decision to refuse to accept tenders from Clunies-Ross companies. Just what are the rules governing the calling of tenders for services such as these? Do they have to be called publicly? Can the Minister specifically exclude particular members of the public from participating in the tender process? If so, under what authority? What right of redress does a wronged person have if the Minister does purport to exclude him? On what basis were the Clunies-Ross companies excluded from the tender process? How many other companies or individuals have been excluded in like fashion, and for what reason? Is it common practice to exclude companies owned by a particular person from tendering, without any reason being given other than that it was a ministerial decision? It seems to me that Mr Clunies-Ross was the object of a victimisation campaign and the way in which he has been treated by a Minister in this Government is a disgrace. In the manual which deals with tendering procedures for government contracts it is clear that a tenderer whose offer has been rejected is entitled to be given the precise reason for the rejection. Surely a person who is not even allowed to get as far as putting in a tender is entitled to know why. I believe that the relevant Minister should answer all of the questions which I have raised today and clarify the specific instance of apparent victimisation of this Australian citizen. After all, in Australia everyone is supposed to be given a fair go but in this case there appears to be every reason to believe that there was victimisation and the little man in the street-that is what he is-was not given a fair go. I add in closing that it is remarkable that the Clunies-Ross family is being singled out by the Federal Government to be exterminated, for that is what is happening, whether honourable senators like it or not, degree by degree. It is all the more remarkable because, after the first generation of the Clunies-Ross family, over the following generations it was probably three-quarters Malay and one-quarter Scottish. Since then the proportion of Cocos-Malay blood has varied. Now, Cocos-Malay blood still runs through their veins. In Australia, if a person has any Aboriginal blood, he can be recognised as an Aboriginal. The Clunies-Ross family, has not been recognised as being Malay. Despite its pioneering of an empty, remote Pacific island, its members have been treated as intruders. Yet they have had very many generations of association with the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Sometimes I think Australians can be ugly. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.21) —Senator Kilgariff asked: What are the rules governing the calling of tenders for services such as these? The finance regulations and directions which derive from the Audit Act 1901 and the Commonwealth purchasing policy and procedures are the rules. Do they have to be called publicly? Yes, when the contract price is estimated to be in excess of $20,000. Can the Minister specifically exclude particular members of the public from participating in a tender process? Yes, by ministerial direction based on government policy; for example, the current government policy of not accepting South African tenders and also the policy against the Builders Labourers Federation. If so, under what authority? The authority is the published procedure relating to purchasing practice in the Commonwealth Purchasing Manual. What right of redress has a wronged person if the Minister does purport to exclude him? If a person is excluded by the Minister from participating in the tender process he can complain to the Ombudsman. On what basis were the Clunies-Ross companies excluded from the tender process? The basis was that their tendering was not in the public interest, which is a ground provided by the Commonwealth Purchasing Manual. I think that is understood, in light of the history of the Clunies-Ross family on the island. How many other companies or individuals have been excluded in a like fashion and for what reason? I am not aware, but I will try to seek that information. Is it a common practice to exclude companies owned by particular persons from tendering without any reason being given other than that it was a ministerial decision? No, it is not common. In the case of Clunies-Ross, the shipping agent acting on his behalf was advised of the reasons in writing. I think that that covers all the questions asked by Senator Kilgariff. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.23) —I will ask a number of short questions which touch in part on the matters raised by Senator Kilgariff. I ask first: Has the present Administrator, or past Administrators, of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands been either instructed or advised by the Department not to have any formal or informal communications with the Clunies-Ross family? I extend that question by asking: In the mind of the Department, is the Clunies-Ross family to be considered persona non grata? I ask further: Is there any intention in any way to seek to remove the Clunies-Ross family completely from Home Island, either overtly or covertly? As Clunies-Ross still has about ten acres of land on Home Island, if he commences a tourist industry on the island-it seems to me an absolutely idyllic location for a tourist venture-will he be commercially hindered, or in any way affected so as to be caused hardship in his endeavours to set up a tourist resort? Of course, the establishment of a tourist resort would require the landing of aircraft at the Government's airport. The final part of the question is: In the event that Clunies-Ross chose to develop some type of tourist structure on that part of the islands that belongs to him still, would the Department seek directly, indirectly, covertly, or overtly to make it so difficult as to make it not profitable, or would it discourage anybody else from in any way having any commercial transactions with him? I now want to ask some questions that relate to the islands directly. One cannot help observing when one visits Cocos that there was a very prosperous and flourishing coconut industry there. The plantation is now quite overgrown. It is infected by beetles and has deteriorated very significantly; yet the Philippines and a number of other countries still commercially grow and harvest coconuts. Inasmuch as, to my knowledge, almost without exception, there is no revenue generated on the islands other than in the form of welfare payments of one type or another, or as a result of government expenditure, particularly by the Department of Housing and Construction, it seems to me that there ought to be a prospect of at least having that industry generating some revenue. As I said earlier, it seems an ideal spot for tourism. Has the Department examined the prospects in the same way as they have been clearly examined on Christmas Island by private individuals in res- pect of a casino and holiday resort? Has that matter been looked at on Cocos? One is also very much struck by the fact that all the whites live on West Island and all the coloureds, the Cocos Malays, live on Home Island. There is a very clear dichotomy between where one race lives and where another race lives. Is there any intention to break down the physical barrier which has been artificially built by whites because they consciously and wilfully built all the homes and infrastructure for those homes on West Island? Is there any intention to move any of them on to Home Island so there is a better interaction between-- Senator Zakharov —Or vice versa. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Or vice versa. Is it the intention to build homes and accommodation on West Island for the Cocos Malays? There is one other matter that has been brought to my attention. When we visited the island we noticed a bulldozer which appeared, on the surface, to be of some commercial value pushed over the edge of a cliff. The area was becoming a rubbish tip. Clunies-Ross offered to purchase it according to what he told us, and he was denied the opportunity to so do. Is that normal commercial practice between Clunies-Ross and the Department? Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.29) —In listening carefully to the Minister's response to Senator Kilgariff, I got the strong feeling that we are in an episode of Yes, Minister. The Minister said that it was not in the public interest that the contracts were denied. He said that under all the circumstances that would be understandable. I am afraid that I do not understand the Minister at all on that point. I would like the Minister to develop that point. It seems to me to be a clear case of discrimination. It is not good enough to come in here and simply say that it was in the public interest. What criteria of public interest actually were involved in that decision? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.29) —No, the Administrator of the Island has not been instructed to declare the Clunies-Ross family persona non grata, nor has she been instructed not to have formal or informal relations with the family. There is no intention to remove the family from Home Island overtly or covertly. Mr Clunies-Ross has not applied to the Department or consulted the Department about any tourist develop- ment on Home Island on his land. There is the possibility of a tourist development on Direc- tion Island, I am told. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Chairman do leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the negative. Senator GRIMES —Certainly, all the whites live on West Island where they are near the air facilities. All the islanders live on Home Island. I understand that that is their choice. I will get some details on that but I understand that there are no activities to change that position; it will be up to them. The main reasons that the copra plantations are in disrepair are their size, the poor land and the bottom has fallen out of the market, as Senator Crichton-Browne would know. It is not a viable proposition. A study is being made and plans are being developed for the pilot cultivation of selected fruits and vegetables using field crop and hydroponic methods. A horticulturist is to begin work in the Territory shortly and recruitment is under way for a development officer who will oversight all aspects of economic and localisation policy. I am told by the officers here that the bulldozer was rusted and not worth two bob, to use the vernacular. Therefore, it would not be worth-- Senator Mason —Why did they not sell it to Clunies-Ross when he offered something for it? Senator GRIMES —I do not know, but I will seek details on that. I am no expert on bulldozers at the bottom of cliffs. On Senator Mason's question, I said that it was a matter of judgment by the Minister that it was not in the public interest. I am sorry I was a bit vague on it. I suggested that the criteria would have been the former relationship of Mr Clunies-Ross, and the difficulties in that relationship, with the Islanders but I will seek precise details from the Minister. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.32) —At the risk of asking a hypothetical question, Minister-- Senator Grimes —You will get a hypothetical answer. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I would have thought that was likely to be the case. In the event that Mr Clunies-Ross were to approach the Department with a view to contemplating tourism, would he be received with sympathy or would the Department seek to ensure that he was in no way able to provide facilities on the Island? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.33) —I am informed that the reaction of the Department would depend on the sort of project he wanted to set up. I dare say that if he wanted to set up a casino or a house of ill fame it might be a bit difficult but if it were something less than that it might be all right. Senator Crichton-Browne —It would be without prejudice? Senator GRIMES —Yes, without prejudice. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(10.34) —I would have to agree with a lot of the things that Senator Crichton-Browne has just said. I was recently on Cocos Island and I would have to say-- Senator Grimes —It is a popular spot. You have all been there. I am the only one who has not. Senator TOWNLEY —No, we were there with a Senate committee that was looking at things. It was enforced capture, I can assure the Minister. I would have to agree that the plantations are virtually out of control. What was obviously once a very good area is not becoming overgrown with trees from the coconuts that fall off the palms alongside the parent trees. They are springing up everywhere. In another few years the usefulness of the area will be completely ruined. The cemetery on Home Island that used to be well looked after is also a disgrace. In fact, everything on the Island, in my estimation, is a disgrace. In many areas-- Senator Zakharov —What about the schools? Senator TOWNLEY —If Senator Zakharov wants to speak about it she may get up with some of her left wing rubbish about how she is leaving these people to sit around and collect all the money they get in all the ways that Senator Crichton-Browne said. I am suggesting that may- be they should be made to do some kind of work for the government handouts that they are getting. The place is a total disgrace. The feeling amongst the staff and the Administrator is also a disgrace. It is something at which the Department should well look. The feelings between many members of the staff there and the Administrator are anything but pleasant. No doubt a few of the people from Greenpeace and so on would say that the island is idyllic. It may have been idyllic once, but it certainly is not now. In many areas the rubbish that has been poured into the sea and left there to rust is a disgrace. Instead of having people sitting around on their tails doing nothing, letting all the plantations get overgrown, something could have been done. I ask the Minister: When will the Government take some action to get the place, including the cemetery which is mainly for the Chinese people, into some order of repair instead of leaving it as a haven for people whom I am sure John Laws would call social security layabouts? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.36) —I think Senator Townley is being a bit unfair. The bottom has fallen out of the copra market. Because the Home Islanders cannot make any money out of it, they have lost interest in that. I am informed that they retain a fierce pride in their island and keep it tidy. The Government is compiling a report which was recommended-- Senator Townley —It is inaccurate information. Senator GRIMES —Maybe the honourable senator's idea of tidiness is different; I do not know. Projects on the island are proceeding, as I understand it. Mr O'Hara from Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd has recommended that partial self-sufficiency is a reasonable objective and has suggested a semi-intensive poultry project, field production of selected vegetables, and wind driven generation of electricity to replace the use of diesel fuel. The Government has approved some of these. Shortly a horticulturist will be going there to look at the projects about which I talked earlier. I think the Government is acting. The simple fact is that, in the present market, people cannot economically produce copra there in that small quantity. I think everyone realises and accepts that. We have to have a replacement industry there, as we have everywhere else. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.37) —I have three very short questions closer to home which I want to ask, particularly relating to the activities of the Department of Territories in the education area. I refer to the proposed closure of the Watson High School which I visited on a recent open day. A lot of effort seems to have gone into keeping children out of the school. A lot of money seems to have gone in, as there was a major asbestos problem in the school. The school was told, after it had been operating for 21 years, that it will be closed down. It seems to be serving a reasonable area. Apparently there has been a temporary reprieve. Does the Government propose to close the school down? If so, what does it intend to do with the facilities, and what will be the cost of this exercise? The next area about which I am particularly concerned and about which I will cut short my question is that of hydatid control within the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority. In this year's Budget there seems to have been a cut of $10,000 for the hydatid control program. It is really an important problem for the area and the surrounding districts because the Australian Capital Territory has the highest incidence of hydatids, and all of us are open to infection. About a dozen cases a year, involving people in the Australian Capital Territory or from the hospital catchment areas, require treatment for hydatidosis. In New Zealand and Tasmania, it has been shown that a long term education campaign can be very effective in reducing the incidence of infestation. Feral animals in the Australian Capital Territory and surrounding areas are apparently, unfortunately, badly infested. This means that humans have to take sensible precautions in dealing with the animals. The contribution of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority has been to withdraw $10,000 from the campaign. To me, that seems insane in the current climate, as preventive activities would greatly reduce the cost of the Australian Capital Territory health system of this problem. I ask the Minister and the Department what they are planning to do about this very serious problem and whether they would enter into any type of advertising campaign to point out to people how they can avoid this particularly nasty but avoidable disease. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.41) —Watson High School currently has an enrolment of 264 students. Its enrolment was projected to fall to 200 by 1988. The cost per student is considerably above the average for high schools. The school was given three years from 1984, with rich resources, to prove its viability. The ACT Schools Authority decided it should close no later than at the end of 1987 and not enrol students in year 7 in 1987. Meetings were held with leaders of the four north Canberra high schools concerning transition arrangements. The Watson High community will be offered a program for years 8 to 10 in 1987, with staffing for some 200 students at the same level per student in 1986. Schools with low numbers attract correspondingly low teacher numbers and, therefore, have difficulty in offering the range of curriculum options of larger schools. The Department of Territories' portfolio committee, with the Authority's representatives, will examine possible future uses of the building. I would have thought that in this day and age, in a Territory which imposes as much on education costs as it does, a high school of 200 or less is quite ludicrous. In relation to the hydatid control program, approximately 12 cases of hydatid are treated in Australian Capital Territory hospitals annually. The vast majority of cases comes from outside the Australian Capital Territory. The Southern Tablelands region has the highest incidence of the disease in Australia since people such as Senator Archer and I, through an effective program State-wide in Tasmania, reduce the incidence of that disease in Tasmania considerably. The Australian Capital Territory Health Authority has given strong financial support to the hydatid control program since 1983. That support was given to establish the program and get the program going in the Australian Capital Territory. But the only way it will be controlled sensibly and effectively is through a strong national program. One cannot control hydatid by just having a hydatid control program in the Australian Capital Territory. The Government agrees that, in order to maximise the effectiveness of the hydatid control program, local activities should be undertaken as part of a national program. The National Health and Medical Research Council's proposed national hydatid control program will be that national program. The Authority will incorporate its hydatid control program educational activities into its 1986-87 program. The reduction by $10,000 in an established program will not mean that that program is ineffective. The program will not be effective until the national hydatid control program extending throughout the Southern Tablelands area is introduced. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Local Government and Administrative Services Proposed expenditure, $619,734,000. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.44) —I just wonder whether the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services can tell us-- Senator Grimes —I thought you had to go home. Senator REID —I do. I just wonder whether the Department can tell us what has been done about selling the Anzac Rifle Range, what advertising there has been, what offers have been made and what stage it is at. I raise again the point I raised the other night as to whether there is any possibility of the sale of the range, if it must proceed, being deferred to allow the Bicentennial full bore rifle event in 1988 taking place. I can see no reason why the Commonwealth Government should persist with the sale so as to preclude that event taking place in 1988. The sale is in the hands of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. I know that it is not that Department's decision that the rifle range be sold, but I wonder whether there is any answer to the question that was raised under another item as to whether the sale could be deferred or handled in such a way as to enable the event to take place. Those involved in planning the event have spent a considerable amount of money. A lot more planning needs to be done. It is not good enough for them to find out in about December 1987 or January 1988 that the event will or will not be able to go ahead. They need to know now so that they can cut their losses and cancel this prestigious event. Already about 400 people have registered to participate. The rifle clubs expect teams to come from about 16 countries. The tourist potential alone is significant. It is an important event for the Bicentenary. Why can the sale not be postponed to enable it to take place and so that the rifle clubs can be told now that the range will be available and that they can go ahead with their planning? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.47) —The Government has been approached by the rifle clubs that use the range and are concerned about the possible cancellation of the major international shooting event planned for the Bicentenary year. I have handed on the honourable senator's concerns about this matter, which she brought up the other night, to the responsible Minister and the Government and we are already considering them. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services is consulting with marketing agents in developing disposal strategies and it is having discussions with the New South Wales State Planning Authority and the Australian Heritage Commission. We are only that far ahead at this stage. As I said the other night, the property is valued at something between $20m and $40m, which I think is a pretty expensive rifle range. Having said that the other night I have received a torrent of abuse through the mail-more than I have received on any other subject on which I have spoken in recent times. So, tonight I had better be very careful and not cause myself too much difficulty. I will get the answer for the honourable senator and for those rifle clubs as soon as the Government has considered their representations. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.48) —The Purchasing and Disposals Division of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services responded to questions asked at the Senate Estimates Committees relating to its functions by saying that, in its disposals, it simply got rid of property from other departments. I asked whether there was any evident trend for the disposal of new items that may have emerged from purchasing activity in the May-June period of the year; whether items were over-brought towards the end of the year in order to use up departmental votes and, therefore, had to be disposed of. The Purchasing and Disposals Division said that it could see no indication of that in its disposals but it could not be certain of it. This Committee provides the only opportunity we have to ask the Government why on earth so many over purchases appear to be taking place, resulting in the disposal, through the auction system, of brand new items. They are brand new items because a booklet produced by the Department states that lots marked with an asterisk have a sales tax rate applicable. To confirm that, the word `new' is placed in brackets after each such item. For example, `2 Pairs Gloves, 20 pairs Cricket Boots, 36 pairs Football Boots. (New)' were sold at auction for $140 on 17 June; `956 white shorts, 728 various white shorts, 7 Sports Caps, 5 Hockey Shirts, 12 Coats' were sold for $90. The list goes on and on. `Steam cooker Sterlec electric. (New)' was sold for $500 and `16 Fire Hydrants (New)' were sold for $375. `Various Pipes, Bends and Bonds (New)' were sold for $5. In addition `48 approximately Thimbles' were sold for $60 and `2 ACI Fibreglass Chopped Strand Mats (New)' were sold for $250. Why were these items bought in the first place? What is it all about? I do not want to hold up the Committee but it strikes me as extraordinary. I have not found a French empire clock in these lists. The list contains the entry `22 Approx. Mud and Snow Vehicle Chains'. It also contains the entries `Wiles Field Kitchen Oven', which was sold for $325, and `50 Door Handles (Fridge) (New)', which were sold for $20. What is the Government doing running around buying 50 new door handles and then not using them? The next item is appropriate for some honourable senators opposite-`9 Track Roller Idlers'. We have some idlers in this place. These items sold for $650. The list also contains the entry: `2 Nashua, 2 Minolta 1114TC Photocopying Machines (New)' which got knocked down for $380. Obviously this is a great lark. One can go out to these auction sales and buy totally brand new equipment which the Government is flogging because it should never have bought it in the first place. I have one word of warning: One should not go out there if one is a senator or a member of parliament because apparently it is illegal for a member of parliament to bid. So one can get one's wife to do it. The list is just absolutely incredibly. I have read a few of the entries from one booklet. There are some more exciting things. I cannot understand why it would be necessary for the Department to sell `360 Approx. 100 volt Light Globes (New)' for $60. Cannot they be used somewhere to bring some light to someone in this Government? Senator Puplick —Find a socket to stick them in. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The list contains `8 Retractable Supports', if Senator Puplick is interested. It also contains `6 Search Lights (New)', for $450. It includes a `Kendall and Gent screwing machine', if anyone is interested. Senator Aulich —How much? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The price is available on application. The list also contains `5 Camera Cases (New)' and `Box of Surgical Instruments (New)'. Although honourable senators may have had enough, I will just give them a couple more. The list continues: `1 Porta Potti, 1 Portable Seat'. Another point I want to make is that, in addition to all of the new stuff which is being flogged because it should never have been brought in the first place, a mountain of used furniture is being sold in these disposals and much of that used furniture should never have been replaced in the first instance. I quote as an example the office of the Leader of the Opposition in Sydney. There was no request whatsoever for the furniture in that office to be changed earlier this year or late last year. The furniture was quite usable. In fact, the only request that I can recall coming out of that office was to improve the phone system which was not adequate. Instead of that, the phone system was not changed but all the desks were replaced. Senator Puplick —It should have been the other way around. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) had asked for it the other way around, he might have got what he wanted. But in every one of these sales there are pages and pages of desks, chairs and heaven knows what being sold for $10 or $20 each. The list goes on and on-boxes of new surgical equipment; you name it. I just wonder what on earth it is all about. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.54) —I became aware of this strange system 20 years ago when I furnished a doctor's surgery by buying all the furniture at a Department of Supply sale, as it was in those days. Mind you, that was before I became a senator. All I know is that the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services is the department responsible for these disposals. The Department purchases things which are over the tender threshold of $20,000. Most of the items mentioned by Senator Michael Baume were not over that threshold. The Department arranges for the sale of excess goods from each department. I do not know anything about each of the individual items. However, I can assure honourable senators that this makes for good Hansard reading. As to the question of why it happens, all I can say at five to eleven tonight, having been here since 8 o'clock this morning, is that I'm buggered if I know. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.55) —I have two very short questions. Government senators-Oh no! Senator VIGOR —I will ask the questions, but I do not really see why a department, because it arrives at this time of night, should fail to be properly examined. We would have adjourned the debate and done this at some other time. I note that the Government has again gone for an accelerated rate of property disposals at this stage. It is claiming $105m this year. I would be very interested to know whether the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services is currently on track for this property disposal program, because last year only $18m of the budgeted amount of $48m was actually realised in this area. The second point I want to raise is the problem of standards when buying electronic data processing and other equipment. I asked about this point during the Estimates committee hearings. A recent Auditor-General's report on the Pisces computer system in the Army made the point very strongly that there was a need for some type of control on project specifications very early in the process. Perhaps a small cell within DOLGAS could look at unusual contract specifications and maybe examine how similar purchases have happened in the United States, especially when we are buying equipment from that country. It could also look at the highly technical matters associated with computer software or hardware. I ask: Is there any plan currently to improve the use of the purchasing dollar in these highly technical areas by setting up such a specialist cell, which I believe would be very useful? We asked about this but did not get any answer about future developments at the time of the Estimates committee hearings. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.57) —The revenue to date to Consolidated Revenue from the sale of properties is $4.6m and there is negotiated for settlement $13.5m, which is a total of $18.1m. That is out of an amount of $100m. I think that is not doing too badly-certainly better than last year. I did not hear all the honourable senator's questions, but I understand that he was asking about automatic data processing acquisitions. Senator McIntosh —Do you want him to repeat it? Senator GRIMES —No, I do not want him to repeat it. I understand that there is a major purchasing branch in the Department which is responsible for major ADP acquisitions. Is that all the honourable senator wanted to know-whether there is such a branch? Senator Vigor —No, it was not. It was basically whether there is any specialised knowledge on the computing and software area to try and help that. Senator GRIMES —Yes, there is, and it monitors all the departmental strategic plans. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without requests; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 21 October, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 16 September. In Committee Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That the Committee approves the Statement, for the year 1985-86, of the Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto, pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901. Resolution reported; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. The PRESIDENT —Order! I call Senator Jessop, and in so doing I inform honourable senators that this is the twentieth anniversary of Senator Jessop's admission to this Parliament and convey our best wishes to him. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.02) —Thank you. It is a pity that I should delay the House on this auspicious occasion, but I was attracted by a speech that was made on Tuesday of this week by Senator Sanders about the report of the parliamentary delegation to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Polish People's Republic. In the course of his speech he said: . . . I think . . . the Soviets are preoccupied with peace because they lost 20 million people in World War II . . . We talk about peace, but we have never had our homes destroyed or members of our families killed. I have been doing some research on people killed in wars and revolutions and by their own governments over the last century, and I thought I would take this opportunity to make some points about that. Senator Sanders repeated what has been described as the most extraordinary example of the Russian mythos, one that survives largely intact today. For that reason, I believe it proper for me to establish, for the parliamentary record, a more realistic measure of the casualties suffered by the Russian people in World War II. The figure of 20 million was first used by the Russian writer Suslov in 1965. Prior to that, in 1945, Mikoyan boasted that victory had been achieved with the least possible losses. From 1947 pro-Soviet writers in the West claimed that the Soviet Union had suffered 7 1/2 million war dead. A careful analysis of the first post-war census was undertaken in 1959 and it revealed that something like 25 million more people had perished in the war years than had been expected. In addition, the projected birth rate was down by 20 million, possibly due to wartime decline and abnormal infant mortality. It seems that in all a staggering total of no less than 30 million Soviet citizens died in the war years. Under the Czar in World War I, in roughly the same duration as the German-Russian conflict in World War II and with approximately the same numbers involved, the Russians lost 1,666,000 dead. Of course the firepower in World War II was greater than in the first war, but in all other theatres of war casualties were considerably lower than those of the First World War. The British Empire, for example, lost one million men in the First World War and less than 250,000 in World War II. The Wehrmacht, which fought the same battles as the Soviet army, lost 1,419,000 killed and another 907,000 missing on the Russian front. The number of Soviet soldiers killed is not known precisely because the Soviet Government did not keep records of soldiers. One Soviet demographer has estimated that 7,500,000 Soviet soldiers were killed, and if we accept that deaths totalled 30 million that leaves something like 22,500,000 civilian deaths still to be accounted for. The Germans captured 5,500,000 Soviet soldiers, three in five of whom where murdered or died of neglect; so, there were three million dead in what was a staggering nazi crime, although perhaps it could be said that the Kremlin contributed to and aggravated this crime because it refused to ratify the Geneva convention dealing with prisoners of war and because of the way in which the Russians treated German prisoners of war. If that three million is deducted from the 7,500,000 Soviet soldiers killed, the Soviet army lost in battle 4,500,000 men. Senator Kilgariff —In the 990-day seige, 2.2 million died in Leningrad. Senator JESSOP —That is a point too, Senator Kilgariff. Approximately two Russian soldiers were killed for every German. Such losses can be explained only by the barbarous manner in which the Soviet army waged war. For example, the Russians sent in penal battalions to test out minefields. Of course many of those Russian soldiers were killed in those circumstances. Others were sent in virtually unarmed, and were hurled in huge waves against German defensive positions. Svetlana Stalin, in her book Only One Year, published in 1969, described how the butcher Beria: . . . carried out the abominable liquidation of whole army units, at times very large ones, who, during the swift German advance into the Ukraine and Byelorussia, had found themselves cut off from their own lines, and who later, against frightful odds, had found their way back. Considering now the 22,500,000 civilians who died, it has been estimated that about 250,000 civilians were killed in German operations against Soviet partisans and 750,000 Jews were massacred by the Germans at Babi Yar and elsewhere. A further one million people undoubtedly died in 1941-42 in the Ukraine, when the Germans made no attempt to feed the urban population. Another million died in the seige of Leningrad and other cities, and 500,000 died working as slave labour in Germany and German-occupied territory. Thus four million civilian deaths could be laid at the door of the Germans. Further deaths occurred due to the scorched earth policies of both totalitarian combatants. Allowing for certain other civilian casualties, there remains some 10 to 15 million Russian deaths still unexplained, and they may always remain that way. However, we know that casualties in the war against the Finns were high. We know that the Soviet Union forced large sections of its population to move from their homes to the East because they were suspected of being sympathetic to the German invaders, and this resulted in widespread epidemics and the death of many people. We know that the NKVD conducted purges, particularly in reoccupied territories, which culminated in regular war against Ukrainian nationalists and other opponents of the communist regime. Millions from ethnic groups such as Crimean Tartars, those from the Caucasian republics and Germans from the Volga region were deported to Siberia. We also know that the death rates in the Gulag exceeded even the terrible rates achieved in peacetime. For example, Dimitri Panin, in his book The Notebooks of Salogdin, claimed that seven million Gulag inmates were slaughtered in the first year of the war. Finally, some five and a half million Russian prisoners of war and civilians deported to Germany were eventually recovered and over two million of them were forced back to the Soviet Union by Britain and the United States of America under the terms of the Yalta Agreement. Thousands of those were executed on re-entering the Soviet Union and the overwhelming majority of the remainder disappeared, dying in slave labour camps. It is important that the Senate records these terrible deeds done by the Soviet Government against its people. Recently, Professor Kummel, of the University of Hawaii, in volume 4 of his work on conflict, established the following statistics for unnatural deaths in the twentieth century. Casualties in war and revolutions total 37 million. The number of people who have died at the hands of their own governments total 119 million, mostly under totalitarian regimes. Of those, 95 million suffered death at the hands of communist governments. This has happened not only in the Soviet Union, but also in Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Laos, Kampuchea, North Korea, Cuba and marxist states in Africa. In addition, we have before us the example of Afghanistan, a nation which has been subjected to Soviet barbarism since 1979. Over one million people have been killed and thousands tortured. Three million refugees from that war happen to be in Pakistan and another two million in Iran and Turkey. Senator Sanders claimed that we Australians have never had our homes destroyed or our families killed. He is a new Australian and can perhaps be forgiven for not knowing about events in 1942 in Australian mandated islands, Darwin and other northern mainland towns. As Senator Kilgariff and all of us know, on the first bombing raid 243 people were killed in Darwin. Senator Kilgariff —And many Americans-on the base and in fighter planes. Senator JESSOP —Many Americans were killed; that is true. That was only the first of 63 bombing raids on the northern part of Australia. We Australians who have been here for a number of years have suffered the travails of war and we seek peace with the same earnestness as do those who, because they preach appeasement, claim to have a unique responsibility for the preservation of that peace. Of course, many of our naturalised Australians-this is what also offended me in what Senator Sanders said-such as Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Hungarians, Poles, Yugoslavs, Ukrainians, Russians and Czechoslovakians, not to mention our newer Australians from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, would take strong exception to Senator Sanders's claim that Australians have not had their homes destroyed or their families killed. Those people have suffered dreadfully at the hands of communist liberators preaching peace. They know that the Soviet Communist Party, which has kept the Russian people in subjugation since 1917, believes that peace will come about only when it has completed its domination of the world and imposed its style of empire upon all the peoples of the world. The Russian people certainly suffered greatly in the Second World War at the hands of either one or other of the two totalitarian regimes involved. The army of the Soviet Union fought with great heroism, and without doubt carried the greater part of the bitter fighting against the Germans from July 1941. I am in no way critical of the Soviet soldier or of the Soviet citizens. Senator Sanders claimed in his speech that he was taught to hate Russian people. I doubt him. He is confused about the Soviet Government and the Russian people. The latter, the Russian people, are the victims of the former. I think that is a fact that has long been recognised by the West. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.15) —I rise on the first opportunity I have to defend my friend and colleague the honourable member for Mayo, Mr Alexander Downer, from a totally false, totally inaccurate, totally nonsensical attack in this place today by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who maintained his normal standards of decency and accuracy in that attack. In other words, the attack was totally incorrect. He alleged falsely that Mr Downer sought from the Government this year $14.4m to establish a national motor museum at Birdwood Mill in South Australia. In fact, what Mr Downer did was to write in support of a submission from the History Trust of South Australia to the Commonwealth Government. He wrote to support in principle that proposal. This is all reported, by the way, in the local newspaper. Senator Walsh has no excuse for misrepresenting what was said. I quote what Mr Downer said: While the request for $14.4 million is ambitious in the current economic climate; the Federal Government should at least designate Birdwood as the National Motor Museum. If it were to do that, then the museum would have a greater capacity to attract sponsorship from the business sector. There is no suggestion of demanding $14.4m out of the Federal Government right now. On the contrary, Mr Downer simply wanted the museum to be designated so it could attract sponsorship from the business sector. Senator Messner —What the Minister has done is absolutely disgraceful. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As the honourable senator says, it is disgraceful, but it is typical of that Minister's behaviour. Mr Downer went on: Whilst these plans have a great deal of merit-- I am quoting Mr Downer, and this is material which the Minister himself had available to him, but which he chose to distort when he chose to present a totally false picture of what Mr Downer was saying- and the cost would probably be recouped over time, it should be recognised that the Government may not be able to afford to fund such a project at this time because of Australia's economic woes and the ever increasing Budget deficit. This is absolutely contrary to what Mr Downer, according to Senator Walsh, is purported to have said. Mr Downer went on: However, that should not inhibit the Government from making a decision to confirm the Birdwood Mill as the National Motor Museum with a commitment that it will provide what assistance it can. We know that the Government is allocating money under the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment for this sort of project and we know that the Government's review of funding for museums will be completed in February 1987. All Mr Downer was asking for was a slice of that available money to the extent that the Government felt able to provide it. Specifically, he wanted the Birdwood Mill designated as the national museum. He was not after $14.4m, because, as he said, the Government obviously would not be able to afford it. My concern is that this Minister gets up in this place and continually blackguards people in other parliaments around Australia with no regard for the truth. I do not mind him blackguarding me; I am used to it. I regard it as an accolade when I am attacked by Senator Walsh. It does not bother me. But it certainly is a misuse of his status and standing in this place deliberately to set out on a course like that when he knows what the facts are, nonetheless proceeding, quite improperly, to denigrate a valued Opposition colleague of mine in another chamber. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.19 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 344. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal No. 11 of 1986-Survey of the computing needs of small enterprises-South Australia. Canned Fruits Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 343. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 342. Defence Act-Determinations 1986- No. 68-Higher Duties Allowance and Higher Duties Allowance-Ranks. No. 69-Field Allowance. No. 70-Temporary Rental Allowance. No. 71-Overseas Rental and Utilities Allowance and others. No. 72-Supplementary Living Allowance. No. 73-Reserve Allowance. No. 74-Post Allowance. Defence Force Discipline Act-Rules-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 337. Excise Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 338. Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1986-No. 4-Meat Inspection (General) as amended (Amendment). Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 340, 341. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinance 1986-No. 76-Poisons and Narcotic Drugs (Amendments) (No. 2). Superannuation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 339.