Tuesday, 17 February 1987 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES SENATE Hansard 1987 FIRST SESSION OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT (FIFTH PERIOD) The Senate, on 10 December 1986, adjourned to 17 February 1987, unless the President fixed an earlier day of meeting. Pursuant to the Resolution of the Senate passed on 10 December 1986, the Senate met on Tuesday, 17 February 1987, at 2 p.m. The Senate met at 2 p.m. His Excellency, Sir Ninian Stephen, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, entered the chamber and, taking his seat on the dias, said: Honourable senators: I inform the Senate that on 23 January 1987 I received a letter from Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland resigning his office as President of the Senate and his seat as a senator for the State of New South Wales. Pursuant to section 21 of the Constitution, I notified the Governor of the State of New South Wales of a vacancy in the representation of that State caused by the resignation of Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland. I have now received from the Governor of the State of New South Wales his certificate of the choice by the Parliament of New South Wales of Suzanne Margaret West as a senator to fill the vacancy. The certificate will be laid on the table and read by the Clerk. The Clerk laid on the table and read the certificate of election of Suzanne Margaret West. Senator West made and subscribed the affirmation of allegiance. His Excellency the Governor-General having retired- Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Mr Cumming Thom, I remind the Senate that the time has come when it is necessary for the Senate to choose one of its members to be President. I propose Senator Sibraa to the Senate for its President and I move: That Senator Sibraa do take the chair of this Senate as President. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Clerk, I propose as President Senator Jessop and I move: That Senator Jessop do take the chair of the Senate as President. Senator Collard —Mr Clerk, I take great pleasure in seconding that nomination. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania) —I propose Senator George Georges to the Senate for its President and I move: That Senator Georges do take the chair of the Senate as President. The Clerk-Are there any further proposals? There being no further proposals, I invite the candidates to address the Senate. Senator Sibraa —I submit myself to the will of the Senate. Senator Jessop —I submit myself to the will of the Senate. Senator Georges —I submit myself to the will of the Senate. The Clerk-There being three nominations, in accordance with standing order 21 a ballot will be held. Before proceeding to ballot, the bells will be rung for three minutes. The bells having been rung- The Clerk-The Senate will now proceed to ballot. Ballot papers will be distributed to honourable senators, who are requested to write upon the paper the name of the candidate for whom they wish to vote. The Clerks will now distribute ballot papers to all honourable senators. The candidates are Senator Sibraa, Senator Jessop and Senator Georges. A ballot having been taken- The Clerk-I announce the result of the ballot as follows: Senator Sibraa, 34 votes; Senator Jessop, 33 votes; Senator Georges, 9 votes. No senator having received a majority of the votes of the senators present, in accordance with the provisions of standing order 21 the name of Senator Georges, having received the smallest number of votes, is withdrawn. A fresh ballot will now take place. Ballot papers will again be distributed by the Clerks. The remaining candidates are Senator Sibraa and Senator Jessop. A further ballot having been taken- The Clerk-Honourable senators, I announce the result of the ballot as follows: Senator Sibraa, 42 votes; Senator Jessop, 34 votes. Senator Sibraa is therefore elected President of the Senate in accordance with the Standing Orders. Senator Sibraa having been conducted to the dais-. The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) —Honourable senators, I am very conscious of the high honour that you have bestowed upon me today by electing me President of the Senate. I am also very much aware of the responsibilities attached to this office. The standards set by my predecessors have been very high indeed, and I shall do all in my power not only to emulate them but also to carry out my responsibilities in a way that will reflect credit on all senators, on the Australian Parliament and on the parliamentary system of government. With your permission, I shall now occupy the chair. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Mr President, on behalf of the Government parties, I should like to congratulate you on your-- Senator Puplick —Government parties? Senator BUTTON —It is quite clear that a number of parties in the Senate voted with the Government in support of your election, Mr President. I congratulate you on your election as President of the Senate. You said in your opening remarks that you had high standards to aspire to in respect of your predecessors. Senator Chaney has already invited me not to make another speech about your immediate predecessor, Senator McClelland, but I will do so very briefly. He certainly acquitted himself with great dignity and skill as President of the Senate and I think that is a view that is shared by all senators. We all hope and believe that you will be able to carry on the tradition which he and his predecessors established. I have not researched this matter, but I believe that you are one of the youngest senators to occupy the President's chair, having been born in 1937. You were elected to the Senate in 1975 for New South Wales. Your term expired on 30 June 1978 and then you left us for a brief period but returned on 9 August 1978 following a resignation and the casual vacancy. During your service in the Senate, Mr President, you have had considerable breadth of experience on Senate committees, something which stands any President in good stead-in fact, it stands any human being in good stead. If one can survive all that, one can probably go on to much greater things. You have shown a particular interest in foreign affairs and defence. You served on the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and on various committees on appropriations and staffing and Estimates committees and so on. You have taken a particular interest in foreign affairs and have been a member of a number of parliamentary delegations. Mr President, as perhaps the youngest person to occupy that chair as President of the Senate, you will have plenty of time to perfect your rulings. It is the Government's intention that you will be there for a considerable period and you will have plenty of time for a long career as President of the Senate. I wish you well and I am sure that whatever their party political persuasions all senators will join with me in wishing you well because a good President is, as you said yourself, for the benefit of the whole Senate and the parliamentary system in Australia. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr President, on behalf of the Opposition senators, I congratulate you on your election. I think that you are experienced enough politically to know where the votes came from in the ballot that was just announced, but we now look to you in your new capacity and congratulate you on your election. Your career, Mr President, like those of most people in this chamber, has been deeply involved in your own political party. Both prior to your entry into this place and since your election you have been deeply involved in the affairs of the Australian Labor Party both in New South Wales and nationally. With the election to the presidency, which is one of the highest positions in Australia, you now assume an institutional role which is beyond your political role. I noted with pleasure your reference in your brief opening remarks to the precedent of your predecessors. In congratulating you today, I simply remember the obvious regard in which your immediate predecessor was held round this chamber-a regard which he earned by being able to convince us all that he was the President of the Senate. He acted in an institutional manner which won great support right round the chamber. The Opposition looks to you, Mr President, to follow that excellent precedent, as you have indicated you wish to do. In what will no doubt be a very willing election year you will be, to some extent, the arbiter of both taste and judgment in this place. We look to you for standards of fairness so that you are indeed the President of all the Senate. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —Mr President, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, I extend our congratulations to you on your election to the presidency of this chamber. As you noted in your comments, Doug McClelland will indeed be a hard act to follow. He will always be remembered with affection by all of us in this chamber. Mr President, you can rest assured that you will win the sort of support and respect that he won from all of us in this chamber if you emulate his good humour, his impartiality and, when warranted, his firmness. I endorse the comments that Senator Chaney made along similar lines, and I wish you well in the job you have to do in what will be a difficult year in the run-up to the next election. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Mr President, on behalf of my colleagues I join those who have already spoken in congratulating you on attaining your high office. The advice has already been given to you that, even though you are in that high office, it does not immediately bring respect; you gain that only after you have earned it. You have seen that with your predecessors. My colleagues will co-operate as much as possible. Occasionally debate gets a little robust, but we recognise that the Standing Orders are there and we will do our best to operate within those Standing Orders. We understand that there are times when we might be chided by your high office. I extend our congratulations. We will attempt to co-operate as much as possible. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —Mr President, as the runner-up in the contest for the honour of occupying the seat of President of the Senate, I join other senators in congratulating you. Having known you for a number of years, I realise that you have had experience in the Senate for some years now and that you will do your best to emulate the example set by former Senator Douglas McClelland, who in my view was one of the fairest Presidents we have had. In my heart I know that you will do your best to emulate that example. I also thank the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) and my colleagues on the Opposition side for their support and the confidence that they placed in me. I would like to think that that confidence may proceed to another occasion in the future when I may not be the runner-up and when the Opposition parties will be in government. I do not think that is too far in the future. I also commiserate with Senator Georges, who has always been a very staunch parliamentarian and who has always had the interest of the Senate at heart. I congratulate him for the numbers that he attracted to his banner and wish him well in his new position in the Senate-his position of independence which he cherishes so much. Mr President, please accept my personal congratulations. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —Mr President, I also congratulate you on your election to the high office of President. I wish you well. You will do well. I apologise for causing a slight delay in the ballot today. But I say to the Senate that no government should be allowed cynically to use this House to make its organisational changes. For that reason I suggest that any government should take more consideration of the status of this House. Mr President, you will possibly serve for a long period. That is not a reflection on the Opposition. Certain changes are taking place in the electorate which will have a serious impact upon this House, and I hope that those who will be here for much longer than I will enjoy the interesting times ahead. When I was nominated I knew that there was an extremely slim chance of being elected but, as I fantasised a little, I began to wonder what I would do if I were elected to the Chair. I could not imagine myself leading the Senate in prayer and, secondly, I could not see myself resisting the desire to interject. Mr President, you have saved me on both counts. I commiserate with Senator Jessop, since he used that term, and I trust that his fortune in the future will be better than it was today. Senator HAMER(Victoria) —Mr President, I would like to add my congratulations on your taking this office, which is one of great dignity and importance, and one that many people seem to aspire to and also leave very reluctantly. I think your predecessor, Senator Douglas McClelland, was the first President ever to resign, so it seems that people, having got there, rather like it. It is interesting and potentially difficult to have a President and a Deputy President from different parties. I think it has worked in the last few years because your predecessor, who was an outstanding President, behaved in regard to this chamber and always towards me with dignity, trust and fairness. Mr President, I am sure I can expect the same from you, and while that continues I pledge you my loyalty. The Appropriations and Staffing Committee is a very important committee. It is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the executive government comes across with the money to run this particular chamber in the interests not of the executive government but of parliamentary democracy in this country. A number of challenges will need to be faced by you and by that Committee in the coming months, challenges which, of course, were also met by your predecessors. Mr President, as I said, you have worked on the New Parliament House Committee. Your election to the Presidency of the Senate will presumably mean that you will take the chair in another place up the hill-that is to say, if an election does not take place beforehand and there is some slip along the way. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Mr President, I should like to congratulate you on your election by this chamber to the high office of President of the Senate. I am quite confident that you will discharge your responsibilities in an efficient and fair manner. Your qualifications for the job are excellent. You have served on a number of committees, including the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing, the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. In any event, it will be necessary for you, as President of the Senate and as head of the Department of the Senate, to ensure that the Senate receives its due in the new Parliament House. In respect of your work on the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, it is important to have somebody in the chair who knows a bit about foreign affairs and defence. Of course, your predecessor has been appointed to the very high office of Australian High Commissioner in London-or, to be correct, St James's Court. All of us believe that he will do a magnificent job representing this country. You, Mr President, as the previous Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, have a wealth of experience and you will be eminently capable of welcoming distinguished guests, particularly those who will be coming for our Bicentenary. I would like to raise just one other point while I am on my feet. Mr President, not many people around this place will know what I am talking about, but I recall that in 1975 you criticised a certain kangaroo court. I am happy to say that there is a President of this chamber who is a declared opponent of kangaroo courts and star chambers. This is going to be very important in the next few weeks and months when we in this chamber consider the question of privilege of this place. I believe that when it comes to the rights of people inside and outside this chamber, it is very important to ensure that we do not go over the edge in relation to privilege issues, that we do not cocoon ourselves and that we do not possibly turn ourselves into a kangaroo court or star chamber. That is a question which, of course, will need to be addressed by you and, indeed, by the whole of the Senate. I join with previous speakers in paying tribute to your predecessor. He upheld the dignity of the Chair. He also upheld the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that this chamber operated as a House of review, that regard was paid to fairness, and that the executive government did not tell the President what to do. I am sure that you are a worthy successor to ex-President Senator McClelland. I would also like to say that Senator Jessop had great qualifications for the job. I commiserate with him and also with Senator Georges. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —Mr President, as one of the rapidly growing number of independents in this chamber-there are not quite enough yet for us to have someone in the Chair-I would like to congratulate you. I think Doug McClelland will be a very hard act to follow but I wish you well in your new and challenging role. The PRESIDENT —I am grateful to those honourable senators who have spoken-the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button; the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney; the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Haines; the Leader of the National Party of Australia, Senator Collard; and Senators Jessop, Georges, Hamer, Harradine and Vallentine-and for the congratulatory remarks they made upon my election to this high office. I want to take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of the excellent work put into this office by my immediate predecessor, the Hon. Douglas McClelland. I am fortunate in that I come from the same State and therefore knew Doug McClelland from my first involvement in politics, the 1961 Federal election campaign-the campaign that resulted in Senator McClelland's election to the Senate. I am proud to say that I am one of Doug's mates. Doug McClelland served as a Minister of State, as Deputy President and Chairman of Committees and as President of the Senate. I admired his occupancy of the chair and the impartial way in which he carried out his duties. On a personal level, I appreciated Doug McClelland's helpful advice as well as his warm personal friendship over many years. I am sure that Doug and Lorna McClelland's term as diplomatic representatives of the Australian Government in London will be marked by the same qualities that they have shown in public life in Australia; that is, outstanding service, commitment and success. Again I thank those who have spoken. I realise that my task will be a difficult one. However, I can assure honourable senators that I will tackle that task with enthusiasm and in a way in which I trust they will all approve. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I wish to inform honourable senators that His Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive Mr President and such honourable senators as may desire to accompany him in the Senate Opposition Party Room forthwith. Sitting suspended from 2.50 to 3.20 p.m. The PRESIDENT —I have to report that, accompanied by honourable senators, I presented myself to His Excellency the Governor-General as the choice of the Senate as its President, and His Excellency was pleased to congratulate me upon my election. The President read prayers. The PRESIDENT —I inform honourable senators that I have received from His Excellency the Governor-General a commission to administer to senators the oath or affirmation of allegiance. The commission was laid on the table and read by the Clerk. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-On 16 February 1987 His Excellency the Governor-General accepted the resignation of Senator the Hon. Don Grimes as Minister for Community Services and appointed Mr Chris Hurford as Minister for Community Services. Also, Senator the Hon. Michael Tate was appointed Special Minister of State, and the Hon. Michael Young as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. For the information of honourable senators I table and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Second Hawke Ministry list, which includes the revised arrangements for ministerial representation in the Senate. Leave granted. The list read as follows- COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT SECOND HAWKE MINISTRY Representation in other Chamber *Prime Minister The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, AC, MP Senator Button *Deputy Prime Minister, Attorney-General, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Commonwealth-State Relations and Vice-President of the Executive Council The Hon. Lionel Bowen, MP Senator Evans *Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce Senator the Hon. John Button Mr Jones *Deputy Leader of the Government and Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Resources and Energy, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and Minister Assisting the Foreign Minister Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, QC Mr Jones *Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters The Hon. Ralph Willis, MP Senator Walsh *Treasurer The Hon. P. J. Keating, MP Senator Walsh *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Leader of the House and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Multicultural Affairs The Hon. Michael J. Young, MP Senator Evans *Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters Senator the Hon. Peter Walsh Mr Hurford, Mr Willis *Minister for Foreign Affairs The Hon. Bill Hayden, MP Senator Evans *Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan Mr Dawkins *Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs The Hon. J. S. Dawkins, MP Senator Button *Minister for Primary Industry The Hon. John Kerin, MP Senator Walsh *Minister for Housing and Construction The Hon. Stewart West, MP Senator Ryan *Minister for Defence The Hon. Kim C. Beazley, MP Senator Evans *Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer The Hon. Chris Hurford, MP Senator Tate *Minister for Social Security The Hon. Brian Howe, MP Senator Tate Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation The Hon. Peter Morris, MP Senator Gietzelt Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence The Hon. John Brown, MP Senator Ryan Minister for Health The Hon. Neal Blewett, MP Senator Tate Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology & Commerce The Hon. Barry O. Jones, MP Senator Button Minister for Territories The Hon. Gordon Scholes, MP Senator Gietzelt Minister for Communications and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence The Hon. Michael Duffy, MP Senator Walsh Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial The Hon. Barry Cohen, MP Senator Ryan Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs The Hon. A. C. Holding, MP Senator Ryan Minister for Veterans' Affairs Senator the Hon. A. T. Gietzelt Mr Holding Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services The Hon. Tom Uren, MP Senator Gietzelt Special Minister of State Senator Michael Tate Mr Young * Minister in the Cabinet MINISTERIAL REPRESENTATION Minister: Representing: Senator the Hon. John Button, Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce Leader of the Government Prime Minister Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting for Youth Affairs Minister for Science Minister Assisting for Commonwealth-State Relations Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, QC, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate Attorney-General Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Minister for Foreign Affairs Minister for Defence Senator the Hon. Peter Walsh, Minister for Finance Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting for Public Service Industrial Matters Treasurer Minister for Primary Industry Minister for Communications Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan, Minister for Education Minister for Housing and Construction Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and Minister Assisting for the Bicentennial Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Senator the Hon. A. T. Gietzelt, Minister for Veterans' Affairs Minister for Transport Minister for Aviation Minister for Territories Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services Senator M. C. Tate, Special Minister of State Minister for Community Services Minister for Social Security Minister for Health The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate of the deaths of Mr F. W. Collard and Mr S. M. Keon, former members of the House of Representatives. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I did not know Mr Collard, but I did meet Stan Keon on a couple of occasions, one about 31 years ago and the other only last year. I was impressed on both occasions by his knowledge of social philosophy and practical political events. Stan Keon was born on 2 July 1915. From his boyhood Stan had acquired and developed a strong sense of pride in his Irish-Australian heritage. His early schooling at St John's Parish School in East Melbourne-one of his teachers was later to become Mrs Arthur Calwell-and later at St Ignatius's School in Richmond provided him with the grounding that allowed him to develop an incisive intellect and a rare cultural sensitivity, without the opportunities or benefits of higher education. His Catholic faith from his earliest years had been a central influence in his formation, and his continuing devotion and loyalty to the church had always been reflected in his strong moral and social convictions. In his early working years Stan was an active member of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia and the shop assistants union. He became a delegate to the Victorian Trades Hall Council as the Geelong Trades and Labour Council fraternal delegate. In 1940 he took up the position of secretary of the Victorian Public Service Association and built it up from a relatively ineffective body to a quite powerful industrial organisation. As secretary of that Association he was responsible for the introduction of the system of competitive examinations for entry into the Public Service, thereby opening the doors to many capable young people from poorer families often with limited schooling, previously denied opportunities for a career in this area. Active as a reformer in Richmond local politics, he was instrumental in establishing a variety of facilities for the aged, long before other local councils or even State governments and Federal parliaments had looked at any general approach to provide practical support for the aged. He worked for the introduction of a free chiropody scheme for elderly pensioners early in his political life, motivated by concern that local residents should not be denied an opportunity to be active and mobile just because they were pensioners with limited means. Stan took it upon himself to organise local residents into wood-cutting teams which travelled regularly at weekends from Richmond to Broadford to cut firewood that was distributed to the needy pensioners of Richmond. He was responsible for the introduction of a rates rebate scheme for local pensioners, a move soon to be adopted by other municipal councils. Stan joined the Australian Labor Party in his early teens and from the start was a tireless worker in his locality for pensioners and families, for the needy and for the underprivileged. He quickly earned the admiration and respect of fellow members of the Labor movement at the local level and subsequently throughout the State branches. He was elected to the Victorian central executive of the ALP in the mid 1930s, a position he held for nearly 20 years until 1955. Prior to his election as the State member for Richmond in 1945 and as Federal member for Yarra in 1949, he chose to confront the corruption that had been endemic in Labor politics in that area, replacing the then political machine with his own supporters and a system of `clean' pre-selection ballot procedures. As a State and Federal parliamentarian he was an outstanding debater and a staunch advocate of the principles of social justice. Janet McCalman, the author of a book on Richmond, writes of the time in 1946 when Stan Keon challenged Bert Flanagan, the communist secretary of the Ironworkers Federation, to a debate in the Richmond town hall. Five thousand people crushed in and around the town hall, but the would-be debaters were drowned out by screaming, singing and counting out. She said that Keon embarrassed the State Government with his attacks on communist union officials and his campaign for faster action to be taken by the Housing Commission to abolish slums. He spearheaded what was to become the `State aid' campaign that eventually brought some measures of justice into education funding, breaking down in part the blatant discrimination against children whose parents exercised their right to choose the kind of education their children should receive. He was one of the first Federal parliamentarians to draw attention to the fact of the destruction of human lives through deliberate abortion. He was recognised for the clarity of his thinking on defence and security matters. He became known as an outstanding debater and was recognised for his tactical abilities, quick wit and incisive mind. John Cain senior described him at one time as `the most promising political material he had ever encountered', a not unexpected compliment to one who on entry to the Federal Parliament was anticipated to rise quickly to become a Cabinet member and a potential Prime Minister. The purge which led to the split in the Labor Party saw Stan Keon and others rejected by an electorate which was divided by sectarianism. In the election following the split Stan lost his seat of Yarra by 791 votes to Dr Jim Cairns. He contested further elections for Yarra until the mid-1960s when diabetes forced him into political semi-retirement. For the historical record it should be noted that during the late Stan Keon's busy career he had a number of community interests, including athletic interests. I seek leave to have a list of those interests incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- A keen athlete and active member of a variety of athletic and sporting clubs (including Richmond Football and Cricket Clubs and was a Vice President of the Richmond Swimming Club and a Trustee of Olympic Park). Secretary of the CYMS Amateur Athletics Club. Delegate and Patron of the Victorian Amateur Athletics Association. Foundation member of the Richmond Historical Association. President of the Irish Nationals Association-Editor Irish Review. Editor of a Ukrainian Community news publication. Proprietor and Editor of the Richmond News. Managing partner in a wine and spirit firm. Senator HARRADINE —Stan Keon was steeped in the traditions of the Labor movement. He was hurt by the Depression years. His quest for social justice for families was prompted by genuine, heartfelt concern for the ordinary people he represented. He also understood that any reconciliation within the Labor movement needed to be preceded by understanding and sacrifice centred around a common ideological purpose. It would have been very easy for this man and many others of his time to preserve their parliamentary and industrial careers by adopting a pragmatic or accommodating approach. Stan Keon will be remembered in Australian political history as a man who sacrificed what was regarded by friend and foe alike to be a promising career in Federal Parliament rather than compromise his firmly held political principles. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —by leave-I want to speak very briefly about a former colleague, Mr Fred Collard, who was a member for Kalgoorlie. For those who are un- familiar with the seat of Kalgoorlie let me say that I believe it to be the second largest electorate in the world, the largest being Alaska. If one cares to correlate the differences in temperature alone one would understand the problems faced by members for such seats. Fred was a member of the House of Representatives when I first came into this place. We had a large number of trips together on aircraft across the Nullabor. Fred was a very kind man, a very hard worker and was very concerned about the community. He spent very little time in Perth. Frequently he became more than a little annoyed because he would arrive in Perth on a Friday morning and would not be able to get to Kalgoorlie until the Friday night. He would have his electorate office open over the weekend to enable his constituents to see him and would return to Perth on the Sunday night so that he could catch a Monday flight back to Canberra. Fred was well respected in the Australian Labor Party and was a member of a large number of community organisations. He was, as I have said, an extremely hard worker before, during, and after his term in the other place. I am sure that I speak for all members of the Labor Party, particularly those from Western Australia who served with Fred and those who followed him, when I say to his family and friends how sorry we are that his death has occurred. We pass on to them our sincere condolences and our very best wishes for their futures. I will just explain a little more about the seat of Kalgoorlie. Fred's only contact with his constituents emanated from the town of Kalgoorlie. If one considers the top half of Australia from Geraldton across to Sydney one understands basically the size of his electorate. It was not possible in Fred's day as it is now-because travel arrangements were not available for members of parliament-simply to hire an aircraft from Kalgoorlie to visit other sections of the constituency. This meant that every time he travelled in his constituency he had to go from Kalgoorlie to Perth to take a flight. That also meant that he spent little time with his family. He bemoaned the fact to me a number of times that it was the travelling that was killing him not the seat of Kalgoorlie. Once again, I pass on my sincere condolences to his family and to his large number of friends and express my sincere appreciation of the work that he did. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-There is a certain irony about the death of Stan Keon at a time when control of the media is once again a matter of public moment. As I recall it, the first occasion on which Mr Keon failed to respond to the Labor Whip was when Mr W. C. Wentworth moved a private member's Bill aimed at blocking the takeover of radio station 2GB by the Bartholomew London Daily Mirror interests in the early 1950s. On that occasion, both he and Mr Mullins absented themselves from the chamber rather than vote to support that takeover by someone whom he described at the time as `a millionaire British socialist'. Inevitably that situation led to the split of which Senator Harradine has spoken today. At the time there was comment about this. I recall one piece of doggerel which detailed Mr Wentworth's activities by saying: The shades of night were falling fast As urgent to the table passed A member who with fervour hissed I'll stop that damn capitalist Bartholomew, Bartholomew. It went on: The vote was taken; where were the hands Of Yarras and of Gellibrands Oh what the nature of the mission That dragged them out of that division On Bartholomew, Bartholomew. I happened to be the scribbler who did that at the time. The thought that strikes me is that there is a strange coincidence in that Mr Keon, who contributed so enormously to the political history of Australia-which is seen from different perspectives, depending on where one stands in politics-and whose contribution was very significant even though his spell in the Parliament was relatively short, should depart this life at a time when that matter of media control, which exercised his mind so strongly, has once again been raised in Australia. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 133 citizens). We, the undersigned concerned Australian citizens hereby petition the Honourable members and senators to totally reject the current proposals for an ID 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 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 Social Security and taxation 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 ID Card and Data Protection Agency have strong potential under this or future administrations to interfere with the quiet and peaceable lives of its subjects. We your humble petitioners in duty bound ever pray. by Senators Gietzelt (from 21 citizens), Puplick (from 18 citizens) and Richardson (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life. (4) That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and other departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia and (2) Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Caesium 137 and Caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Macklin (from 306 citizens) and Walsh (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the only activity now taking place in the South Pacific which the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty bans is the testing of nuclear weapons by France at Mururoa and that the export of uranium by Australia to France undermines the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to adhere to the Australian Labor Party's policy, as set out in the Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Bill which prohibits the supply of uranium to France until France stops testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility in Pine Gap terminates on 19 October 1986. 2. In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. 3. Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. 4. The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should decide that- 1. The Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap not be extended beyond October 1986. 2. Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. 3. Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 84 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That we oppose the deregulation of housing interest rates without adequate safeguards to protect homebuyers. 2. That we condemn the Government for breaking its unequivocal promise not to deregulate these interest rates. 3. We express our concern that the Government's decision will cause undue hardship to many Australian families. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the Government to reverse its decision and re-impose the interest rate ceiling. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 41 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) Australians are offended by taxation evasion and welfare fraud which has the effect of increasing the taxation burden of honest Australians. (2) The community has shown its overwhelming support for the Government's decision to proceed with a national identification system known as the Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable Senate will: continue the fight against taxation evasion and welfare fraud and restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare systems by supporting the Australia Card Bill. by Senators Maguire (from 17 citizens) and Ryan (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. (2) The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. (3) The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from three citizens) and Brownhill (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that the 1986 Census deprived housewives of the right to record their occupation and instead forced them to give the negative response: ``No, did not have a job''. That the 1986 Census could have been used, at no extra cost to taxpayers, to give a genuine ``Fair Go'' to all women to record their views on the government's National Agenda for Women. That coinciding with the 1986 Census, the Office of the Status of Women is conducting a costly, selective survey titled: ``A Fair Go For Women''. This survey requires no identification of respondents, making the results of the survey highly suspect since it is known that various groups and individuals have obtained bulk supplies of the brochure, while the majority of women are not aware that their views are being sought by the Government. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will restore to the Census a category for housewives, and that the `Fair Go For Women' survey will be recognised as a costly exercise of dubious value in determining the real views of Australian women, as this should be done through the Census, or a Referendum held in conjunction with the next Federal Election to minimise costs, and to give all women a genuine `Fair Go'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights will do nothing to advance the rights of Australians, because it is dangerously ambiguous and will cause confusion within the legal system; it endangers our Federal system; and, it is to be administered in an authoritarian manner inconsistent with the present legal rights of all Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray. That the Senate rejects the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and all cognate Bills. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and honourable members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned in the State of Queensland showeth that the electoral system in Queensland, based on a 4 zonal weighted system, is an affront to democracy. The National Party under the leadership of Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen is always returned to Government with no opportunity for the voting public to bring about change. Your petitioners point out that under the Queensland voting system the National Party at the State Elections on 1 November 1986 managed to achieve 55 per cent of the seats with only 39 per cent of the votes. This demonstrates that 61 per cent of Queenslanders do not want a National Party Government yet received one. Your petitioners therefore earnestly pray that the Federal Government legislates as a matter of urgency to bring about a democratic system of voting in Queensland State elections based on the principle of one vote one value. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Colston (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Plant Variety Rights Bill 1986, now before Parliament, should be withdrawn because: (1) There is growing concern about the economic concentration of the seed industry and the loss of traditional food plant varieties in overseas countries with this legislation. (2) Genes, seeds and other plant genetic material should remain a public resource. (3) The demand for uniformity, imposed by P.V.R. legislation, reduces genetic variability and could lead to the loss of traditional genetic material. (4) P.V.R. will discourage the free exchange of information, seeds and genetic material and is therefore likely to adversely affect Australia's public breeding programmes. (5) Our choice of food, its quality and nutritional value will increasingly be determined by the interests of large overseas companies rather than those of the Australian consumer. (6) There is no requirement in the bill for superiority or for merit testing of varieties to protect the interests of our farmers. (7) The bill can be interpreted to allow the registering of ``discoveries'' of previously unknown Australian native plants, many of which may have great social and/or economic value. (8) P.V.R. will mean higher costs for the farmer and the consumer and an increased burden on the Australian taxpayer. Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament recognise the widespread community opposition to P.V.R. and promote alternative incentives for plant breeding in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Powell (from 26 citizens), Tate (from 81 citizens) and Zakharov (from 260 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the under-signed citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned that in the International Year of Peace, young Australians face an uncertain future due to: 1. a continuing arms race between the super-powers which threatens to extend into outer space. 2. military expenditure continuing at ridiculously high levels. 3. continuing testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore humbly call upon the Federal Parliament to do everything possible to make our future more certain, by: 1. encouraging peaceful dialogue through diplomatic channels as the means of solving issues. 2. persuading all developed countries to spend less on armaments, and more on basic needs like food, health, shelter and education for all people of the world. 3. promoting the extension of agreements to reduce testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Tate (from 389 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned urge the Federal Government- (1) To abide by the Memorandum of Understanding (The Forestry Agreement) which they entered with the Tasmanian Government on the 12th June, 1986. (2) Not to take action that would lock up further large areas of Tasmania. (3) Not to list further areas of Tasmania on World Heritage without due discussions with the Tasmanian Government. (4) Not to seek to coerce the Forest Industries employers to undertake particular actions against their will. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from three citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That managed logging in the Tasmanian National Estate forests is essential for the economic and social well-being of Tasmanians. That controlled logging of the Tasmanian National Estate forests can proceed without adversely effecting the other multiple role uses of forests. That without the harvesting of sawlog and other timber from the Tasmanian National Estate forests, the jobs of thousands of Tasmanians would be put at risk and the export income capacity of the industry greatly reduced. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Honour the recent agreement made between the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania regarding timber resource use in Tasmania. Accept the agreed management plans established by the Tasmanian Forestry Commission for the utilisation of timber from the Tasmanian National Estate areas. Reject the emotional and misleading arguments put forward by radical conservationists who want to increase the area of the already large Tasmanian National Parks by including the National Estate areas within them. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 25 citizens). Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —by leave-I present the following petition, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, from 218 citizens praying that roundabouts be installed at certain intersections on La Perouse Street, Red Hill, in the Australian Capital Territory: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the number of accidents and `near misses' which have occurred in La Perouse Street between Flinders Way and Monaro Crescent due to the volume of traffic and excessive speed of vehicles using the street is of great concern to the residents of the area and to parents of children attending the Red Hill Primary School. A large percentage of the cars using this and nearby streets appear to take little notice of the many traffic warning signs in the area. Your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: request action to be taken by the appropriate authorities to install roundabouts at the intersections of La Perouse Street with Flinders Way, Hartog Street, Carnegie Crescent and Monaro Crescent as a matter of urgency in an effort to reduce the speed of traffic and, hopefully, the number of accidents. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the hours of meeting of the Senate be varied as follows: (a) During the first sitting week- Tuesday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-7.30 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Friday, 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-3.45 p.m; and (b) during the second sitting week- Monday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Tuesday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-7.30 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate expresses its grave concern that the Federal Government has misled the Australian people about the economic crisis that is now seriously affecting all Australians, particularly the disastrous $1.3 billion current account deficit for January 1987 that gives the lie to Government claims that the balance of payments situation is `on track', and the record relative inflation rate of close to 10 per cent compared with 2 per cent or less for so many of our trading competitors, both of which ensure that Australia's excessively high interest rates, the huge rise in our overseas indebtedness, high unemployment and pathetically low level of economic growth will persist, resulting directly from the Government's gross economic mismanagement. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. I seek leave for the list to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Certain petroleum products-taxation measures-Industries Assistance Commission report. 2. Office of Australian War Graves-annual report 1985-86-pursuant to section 13 of the War Graves Act 1980. 3. Certain uncoated woodfree papers from South Africa (anti-dumping)-Industries Assistance Commission report. 4. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and Commissioner for Superannuation-annual reports 1985-86-pursuant to section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976-together with the Auditor-General's report on the financial statements of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and a further report by the Auditor-General on the financial statements-pursuant to sub-section 161 (2) (d) of the Superannuation Act 1976. 5. The Australian National University-annual report, part 2, for the year ended 31 December 1985-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to sub-section 33 (3) of the Australian National University Act 1946. 6. Advance to the Minister for Finance-statements of expenditure for November and December 1986 and January 1987. 7 National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council-annual report 1985-86-pursuant to section 9 of the Coal Research Assistance Act 1977. 8. Joint Coal Board-annual report 1985-86-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to sub-section 20 (3) of the Coal Industry Act 1946. Senator CHANEY —Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate agree that Australia's inflation rate is double the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average; that interest rates in Australia are far higher than those of our trading partners-indeed, in many cases twice as high or more; that Australians are suffering higher average and marginal tax rates than when the Hawke Government came to office; that Australia's gross foreign debt now amounts to about $100 billion, or more than $6,600 per head for every man, woman and child in this country; and that the Government's wages policy was based on the accord, which has now collapsed? Does the Minister further agree that yesterday's balance of payments figures, allied with the other matters I have mentioned, show that the Australian economy remains in a state of crisis and that many individual Australians are also in a state of crisis? I ask the Minister: What action does the Government propose to remove these enormous burdens on individuals and industry? In particular, before the end of the parliamentary session will the Government bring down a mini-Budget containing major cuts in Government spending in an attempt to bring down the high interest rates which are throttling productive and job-creating investment in this country? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney asked me five initial questions. The answer to the first question is yes; to the second question, yes; to the third question, I am not sure; to the fourth question, yes; and to the fifth question, no. I was then asked whether I regard the Australian economy as being in a state of crisis. My answer to that question is no. I think the Australian economy is going through an extremely difficult period, and to characterise it with the word `crisis', of course, gives an air of drama to a situation which has been long in the making and which will be some time in the correcting. Of course, the Opposition has the word `crisis' in its mind at the present time. It naturally comes to mind when the word `Opposition' is mentioned, because if ever there was an opposition in crisis in this country it is the present Opposition. So I understand Senator Chaney's using the word `crisis'. Let me say that in terms of economic issues there is no crisis. There are some extremely difficult situations which this Government has to address and which any government worth its salt would have to address in the present circumstances. I was further asked what will be done about alleviating the burden on individuals and industry. That sounds to me like a bit of `incentivation' in reverse. It is all very well to talk about burdens on individuals and industries and to suggest very glib ways in which those burdens might be alleviated. Let me say first of all that I do not concede the burdens on individuals to the extent that Senator Chaney implied in his question. Certainly I do not concede the burdens on industry to the extent that Senator Chaney implied in his question. If one is not specific about any of these things, of course, it is easy to make a most general implication. I was then asked whether in order to alleviate these problems the Government will bring down a mini-Budget in May. That is a question which the Government will address and make an announcement about at the appropriate time. But in terms of alleviating burdens on individuals and so on, a mini-Budget would not be a solution in any dramatic way to the economic problems which this country currently faces. I think one needs to get some of these issues in a slightly better perspective than that in which the Opposition clearly has them. Senator Chaney raised the matter of yesterday's current account figures. By way of example, I quote from this morning's Sydney Morning Herald editorial. In respect of those figures it said: The lesson for the market is, don't put too much faith on the highly volatile monthly trade figures . . . The lesson for the Government is that the correction of the current account deficit is running according to its long, hard schedule . . . But the process of adjustment is slow-and will involve considerable investment which itself will add to the import bill. The Sydney Morning Herald did not take any steps to single out what the lesson for the Opposition might be, presumably on the basis that it thought the Opposition, in its approach to these issues-which are very serious ones-was irrelevant. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. The final part of the question, which the Minister did touch on, asked whether the Government would bring down a mini-Budget. The Minister said that the Government will address that matter. Is the Minister saying that to this point the Government has not given any consideration to the need for a mini-Budget during this parliamentary session? Senator BUTTON —No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the Government will make a decision about that matter and announce it at the appropriate time. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the Minister for Education seen recent Press comments in the Australian Financial Review that the Federal Government will end government funding for the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the Government's decision on continued funding for the Centre of Policy Studies? Will the Minister comment on the claim by Peter Shack that the decision is `an attack on academic freedom motivated by the most unjustified political suspicions'? Senator RYAN —I am aware of such allegations by Peter Shack and others, and I can confirm that the Government has made a decision with regard to the future of the special research centres program. I can also confirm that part of that decision was to discontinue funding for the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University. It had been my intention to table the assessor's reports, on which the Government's decision was made, on Thursday of this week when adequate printed supplies of the reports would have been available. However, because there is now controversy in the Press and scurrilous allegations, such as those coming from Mr Shack, are being made, I think it is important to table these reports now so that honourable senators will be able to judge for themselves the academic assessments made of the programs, including those of the Centre of Policy Studies. This afternoon I will be able to make available to interested senators some printed copies of these reports. I now table those reports. A reading of those reports-and I exhort honourable senators who will wish to make comments about this matter to read the reports-will demonstrate that the Government's decision with regard to this special research centres program was based entirely on academic assessments made of the nine centres. Honourable senators-particularly those on the Opposition side-will recall that in fact the centres were started under the previous Government. I must congratulate the members of the Government at that time because this has proved to be a very successful way of concentrating research expertise into expert teams throughout Australia. The centres were given a commitment for two triennia of funding and it was the intention, I think announced by the Government at that time, to review the program. Certainly, that was announced last year in our guidelines to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. The review has taken place. It was properly conducted. Teams of experts in the appropriate fields were appointed by CTEC and wrote assessment reports of the centres. Those assessment reports were then considered by a steering committee chaired by Mr Hugh Hudson, the Chairman of the Tertiary Education Commission. Recommendations were made to the Cabinet on those bases and those recommendations were accepted. I should point out that there has been some reduction of funding for each of the centres. Senator Teague —Ten per cent. Senator RYAN —In the vicinity of 10 per cent. By that means, $1.5m has been freed for immediate expenditure. I expect that CTEC will shortly be inviting applications for three new centres. Of course, the Centre of Policy Studies will be free to re-apply if it has improved its performance. It intends to appoint a new deputy director, which may indeed lead to an improvement in its academic performance. But it is very important that all honourable senators be aware of the kinds of academic judgments which were made by academic peers about the Centre. For example, the assessment panel which appraised the Centre of Policy Studies advised that the `Centre's performance fell short of what could reasonably be expected from a special research centre'. The panel concluded that the Centre's record in relation to publications `has not been outstanding', that no effective developments in post-graduate or post-doctorate training have occurred, and that the Centre was unable to claim substantial contributions to expanding the national database in the fields in which it worked. As I said, the full reports are available for honourable senators to read. Having read them, they can come only to one conclusion, and that is that the level of performance from the Centre of Policy Studies was not high enough to justify continued funding under this program. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Deputy Leader of the Government and Manager of Government Business in the Senate, the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and the Minister Assisting the Foreign Minister in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Senate. In case honourable senators do not recognise the Minister, it is Senator Gareth Evans. I refer the Minister to renewed reports that the French Government is planning to move its nuclear testing site from Mururoa Atoll in the Pacific to the Kerguelen Archipelago, which is south-west of the Australian continent. Is the Minister aware of the great concern amongst Australians at these reports and at the possibility that radioactive toxins escaping into the atmosphere above the islands could be carried at least across the south-west corner of Australia and possibly to other parts of Australia? I ask: What action has the Government taken or will it take to ascertain whether such a move on the part of France is likely and to dissuade the French Government from such a serious course of action if that is the case? Senator GARETH EVANS —I hope that this question from Senator Durack signals some renewed enthusiasm on the part of the Opposition for expressing its opposition to the French testing in the Pacific. The indignation that we have heard from the other side on this issue is very selective. It is only when it seems to come close to Senator Durack's own electorate that his senses start to come to the boil. As I have indicated, the reality is-- Senator Peter Baume —Cheap and smart. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not cheap. I am distinguished and statesmanlike. This is my new image, Senator Baume. I promise that that is as insulting as I will ever get from now on. As I have indicated previously to the Senate, the Government is not aware-it is still not aware-of any hard evidence to support the recent speculation that the French authorities are planning to move France's nuclear testing program from Mururoa Atoll to the Kerguelen Islands. In 1983 scientists from Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea visited Mururoa Atoll to investigate the effects of the French nuclear testing program. As is well known, the report was critical of some aspects of French testing but overall found no immediate cause for alarm. The team found that the risks of radioactive leakage occurring, if at all, were to be in the 500-year to 1,000-year time frame. Claims that radioactive leakage could occur within a much shorter time frame of 10 to 100 years are now being checked. A preliminary comment is that while there is a possibility that leakage could occur, as suggested within 10 to 100 years, the balance of probability still supports the conclusion of the 1983 scientific mission. Of course, the Australian Government would be as strongly opposed to French nuclear testing in proximity to Australia in the Indian Ocean as it is opposed to France's current testing in the Pacific Ocean. Our assessment is that a move of the testing program from French Polynesia to the Kerguelen Islands would be unattractive to France on political grounds and in view of the considerable economic cost that would be involved in the relocation of facilities. The Government has sought to check the latest reports. While the French Government has not made a formal statement on the matter, senior French military officials have firmly denied to Australian Embassy staff in Paris that France has any intention to move its nuclear testing program from Mururoa. Finally, I record President Mitterrand's utterance on 3 February: Mururoa exists and will continue to exist. We need to be able to carry out nuclear testing there. So for all those reasons there do not appear to be foundations for the speculation, but obviously it is an issue that the Government will continue to monitor very closely. Senator BOLKUS —I ask the Minister for Finance whether his attention has been drawn to an article in the Sunday Telegraph last weekend quoting Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's view on what he says are the Liberal Party's plans to introduce a value added tax. The Premier stated: It is disastrous. I cannot state this as well as the Premier. He continued: I would have more chance of selling ice cream at the South Pole than they would have of selling an eight per cent value added tax. I ask the Minister: What are the deficiencies of a value added tax? Senator WALSH —Some of the catastrophic disadvantages of the value added tax of the type proposed by Mr Howard were spelt out by the Treasurer in a speech in Melbourne last week, particularly the dangers under present circumstances when inflation has already been boosted by the devaluation of the dollar. There is no guarantee that, because of the further boost to the consumer price index which would inevitably flow from the value added tax proposed by the Opposition, attempts would not be made by organised labour to recover those higher prices through higher wages. In other words, Australia would be locked into a rate of inflation of the order of 16 or 17 per cent if the Opposition's proposals were actually to take place. I commend to anybody who wants to read at some length a careful reading of the Treasurer's speech. However, there are many other disadvantages of a value added tax with which the Treasurer did not deal-principally, the cost of collection. Let us take the United Kingdom experience as a guide. I think it is, if anything, likely that the collection costs in Australia would be relatively higher than in the United Kingdom. The costs to the United Kingdom Government are of the order of 2 per cent of the revenue raised. That is about twice the cost of collecting income tax in Australia. However, the cost to the Government of collecting VAT is by no means the total cost of collecting it. In particular, it falls in a very regressive way on small business; it falls particularly hard on small business. The United Kingdom experience, based on 1977 figures, showed that it cost small businesses with a turnover of between #10,000 and #20,000, which converted into Australian dollars is something like $40,000 to $80,000, more than #12 for every #1,000 turnover. In other words, VAT in the United Kingdom is a turnover tax of 1.2 per cent on small business. A turnover tax of 1.2 per cent on small business is what the Opposition is proposing. The cost for big business, defined as those businesses which had a turnover of greater than #1m in 1977, of the order of $A4m today, was 40 pence per #1,000. For those who are interested, that is 0.04 per cent as against 1.2 per cent for big business. In other words, the effect of a value added tax would be to-- Senator Archer —You are a humbug. Senator WALSH —Who said that-not the Patrick partner? Did that come from the man who used to write Patrick Partners' prospectuses? The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that Senator Walsh address the Chair. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. Heavy cost to the Government, a 1.2 per cent turnover tax on small business and a turnover tax of 0.04 per cent on big business-given all of those facts, I must say that I am absolutely amazed that the self-styled spokesman for the small business lobby in Australia, Mr Peter Boyle, is in favour of such a tax. Senator HAINES —I direct my question to the Special Minister of State. Before doing so, I would like to offer him my congratulations and those of my Party on his elevation to that office, although I have to say that I cannot understand why such a basically decent person would ever want to be a Minister. In view of the widespread and ongoing community concern about inadequate law enforcement resources in Australia, will the Minister explain what steps he intends to take to rectify this problem? In particular, can he outline the ways in which he intends to improve on the approach taken by his predecessor, especially in relation to combating organised crime and drug trafficking? Senator TATE —Firstly, I should say that I certainly do not accept the implication in the last part of Senator Haines's question that my predecessor had been anything but most astute in trying to get those resources which are required to deal with organised crime, particularly drug trafficking, in Australia. Indeed, as I recall from the briefings sometime during the last 12 hours or so, the fact is that by the end of this financial year the Australian Federal Police will have had an increase in manpower of some 21 per cent. We hope to add another 100 personnel to the Australian Federal Police this financial year. It is well known to honourable senators that the National Crime Authority has also had resources far in excess, for example, of those which were available to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. I believe that those two matters are merely highlights in the endeavours of my predecessor to ensure that those resources which are required to deal with organised crime and drug trafficking are provided. I had the privilege of chairing a Senate committee which recommended the structure and organisation of the National Crime Authority. I know that many honourable senators on both sides of the chamber were interested in its report and the passage of the legislation. It became very apparent to me during the course of that inquiry that it was not always simply a question of resources but rather one of co-operation and collaboration between the various law enforcement agencies which would be crucial to a successful attack on organised crime in Australia. I believe that part of my role is not only to help secure those financial resources that might be required but also to help foster that collaboration and co-operation to overcome the protection of turf and the holding on to one's own particular area of jurisdiction which can sometimes impair the national effort that is required. As I have said, I will be undertaking both aspects-fighting for resources and attempting to ensure that all law enforcement agencies co-operate in the endeavour which I know the Senate would want them to undertake. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In recent weeks our newspapers have given us an account of the appalling problem confronting Palestinian refugees in the Bourj al-Barajneh refugee camp in Beirut. The camp has apparently been under siege for some months. No food or supplies have entered that camp and it is now claimed that many Palestinian refugees are starving. Can the Minister say what steps the Government has taken to protest this gross inhumanity and to raise it in United Nation forums? Will the Government continue to protest about these sorts of atrocities wherever they occur? Is the Government considering providing, or has it already contributed, aid for the relief of such refugees? Senator GARETH EVANS —As must have become vividly apparent to concerned citizens all over the world in recent times, conditions in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon are grave indeed following months of siege. The Government is very greatly concerned about the situation and has in the past responded generously to help alleviate the situation. The principal problem has been for relief workers to gain access to the camps with the supplies held by relief agencies. However, the Government believes that there are now some encouraging developments in this respect. Reports indicate that food and medicine have been allowed into the Bourj al-Barajneh camp and that residents of the Rashidiyeh camp, south of Tyre, are now able to leave the camp between 7 a.m. and 2 p.m. daily to buy food and other essential supplies. No new appeals have been received from United Nations and other international agencies, such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency or the International Committee of the Red Cross, as they appear to be holding adequate relief supplies in Lebanon. Of course, the Australian Government will continue to give due consideration to requests for assistance when they are received. Australia is not a party principal to efforts to promote a solution to the problems in Lebanon, including the position of the Palestinian refugees. We have, though, urged all parties involved to exercise maximum restraint and to enter into negotiations aimed at national reconciliation and a peaceful settlement of these problems. We will continue to actively support efforts in the United Nations to achieve that objective. Senator ARCHER —I also ask a question of the Special Minister of State. I need to prefix it by saying that I too particularly regret the lack of commitment on the part of his predecessor in these matters. Recent media reports indicate that the Perth office of the National Crime Authority has been closed because of Federal funding cuts, even though its extensive investigations into organised crime and drug trafficking in that area are not complete. Is it a fact that the NCA has uncovered links between organised crime and some well known local names? Will the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that there will be no reduction in effort in Western Australia until all investigations are concluded? Will he give the Senate the reasons for closing the Perth office? Senator TATE —Of course, I will not comment on any particular details of the operation of the National Crime Authority in relation to the reference which required the setting up of the Perth office. As I understand it, the office in Perth was established by the National Crime Authority, of its own initiative, to undertake investigations under one reference and part of another. My advice is that both investigations are now completed, with some minor matters to be finalised. The claim that the office was only halfway through or at an incomplete stage of those investigations under those references is not correct. I have been advised by the National Crime Authority that it does not expect to need to operate an office in Perth in the next few months. If it were required, the NCA would undertake the dedication of resources to achieve it. Senator Archer will be aware, as will honourable senators, that the National Crime Authority, when it does not act under a reference from the Inter-Governmental Committee, acts of its own motion. I believe this was the case with the investigations undertaken in Western Australia. There was no political intervention whatsoever, in other words, in its undertaking the setting up of the Perth office. I hope that there will be no political intervention-there certainly will not be on my part-in its autonomous decision to close it. I also emphasise that it does have a certain autonomy, which was confirmed to me by Mr Gordon Hill, the Western Australian Minister for Police, whom I phoned before lunch. He expressed his confidence in the dedication of the Commonwealth Government in fighting organised crime. He emphasised, too, the autonomy of the National Crime Authority in these matters. I have already had some communication which leads me to hope that I may meet with Mr Justice Stewart of the National Crime Authority in the very near future to discuss the whole question of its adequately performing what the Parliament requires within, obviously, the limits of budgetary considerations. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer to a recent publication entitled Mandate to Govern which is put out by what appears to be an extreme right wing organisation called the Australian Institute of Public Policy. Given that the contents frightened me, I ask the Minister to outline the recommendations of that body in relation to his portfolio and the implications for the welfare of the veteran community as a whole. Senator GIETZELT —I received today a copy of the publication Mandate to Govern. My interest was excited by a review of it in recent days. Suggestions have been made by persons associated with that publication and the organisation responsible that government should immediately take steps to reduce public sector expenditure, government departments, and so on. This, of course, is the latest in a long line of documents emanating from certain right wing lobby groups, think tanks and business organisations in Australia which are advocating a certain philosophical position about public sector activity. In this publication, Mandate to Govern, they have actually advocated winding back veterans' entitlements and abolishing the Department of Veterans' Affairs in order to help the Government-a future government; certainly not this government-to fund massive tax cuts for the very rich in our community. I point out to the Senate that similar suggestion have been made by other groups-the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors some seven or eight months ago, and the Institute of Public Affairs-all of which resulted in my receiving hundreds of letters from veterans and veterans' organisations, expressing grave concern at suggestions that the Department of Veterans' Affairs should be abolished. They have suggested that the pensions section of the Department of Veterans' Affairs should be handed over to the Department of Social Security; that my Department's responsibility for defence matters should go to the Department of Defence, and that matters associated with pharmaceuticals, health treatment and hospitals-I remind the Senate that my Department has the responsibility for nine hospitals, six of them major repatriation hospitals-should be handed over to the Department of Health. I point out, too, that several Opposition spokesmen, principally Mr Carlton, the shadow Treasurer, and Mr Connolly, the spokesman on Public Service matters, whilst not specifically referring to these matters, have associated themselves with statements calling for a reduction in the number of Commonwealth departments. I am certain that the Department of Veterans' Affairs would be in the front line in those sorts of circumstances. Of course, there is a very active shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who makes pronouncements on a number of matters. He is silent on this issue about the future of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Senator COLLARD —Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate agree that the current account result for January means that, in the absence of urgent government action, interest rates will remain at their present high levels? Does the Minister really believe that investment in Australia will increase in a situation in which the Australian prime rate exceeds 18 per cent, compared with a rate of 12 per cent in the United States, 7.5 per cent in Great Britain and West Germany, and 3.75 per cent in Japan? Senator BUTTON —The current account figures issued yesterday are matters which I have already commented on. Let me say this: Current account figures are not the sole determinant of interest rates. For example, after two very favourable current account figures in the two months prior to the January figures, there was a downward movement in interest rates, which was adversely affected by realignments of international currencies-- Senator Collard —They were hardly favourable. Senator BUTTON —Senator Collard cannot have it all ways. I suppose that when his whiz- bang colleague comes here from Queensland he will fix up all of these things with a wave of the hand. I think he might find it more difficult than the honourable senator thinks. The figures for the two months of November and December, in terms of the predictions made by all experts-who are not to be found in the National Party, if honourable senators do not mind my saying so-were favourable-- Senator Collard —They were still a disaster. Senator BUTTON —Senator Collard wants to characterise them as a disaster. I ask him to try to get his mind around a few simple facts which most economists and commentators get their minds around. The results in November and December were favourable in light of the Budget predictions and in light of predictions by a wide range of experts. The results in January-if Senator Collard wants to hang his Akubra hat on something-were not favourable. They were not pleasing to the Government and were not a matter of great joy for anybody. But let me say that we anticipated a degree of volatility in the current account figures from month to month. That will continue to happen for some time into the future. I do believe, however, that the Government's predictions in the Budget in respect of the current account for the financial year will be met. The total current account figure for this 12 months will be below the Budget predictions. If Senator Collard reads last year's Budget Papers, he will see that, in terms of anticipations, there was no very sanguine or wildly optimistic view, or any view which could be characterised as irresponsible, in the preparation of the Budget Papers, in light of current circumstances. I was making the point that factors other than the current account deficit will affect interest rates, and that is so. I was next asked whether there would be any dramatic reversal of current interest rates. I believe not. Interest rates have come down a little in the past couple of weeks, but I do not believe that there will be any dramatic reversal as a result of current circumstances. The Government has made its position clear on this matter. We recognise that in terms of the economic problems facing Australia this is a medium to long haul situation which has to be dealt with, and it will not be dealt with by moves dictated by expediency or opportunism of one kind or another. I make the point by referring to the words used yesterday by a man who used to be a member of this Parliament, Mr John Hyde, who had more intellectual rigour about him, more policy-- Senator Chaney —He has just been abused by your colleague. Senator BUTTON —I do not mind about that. That has nothing to do with it. The point is that he had more intellectual rigour and political honesty than the rest of the members of the Opposition put together, and that is the source of half of the Opposition's problems at present. In regard to this issue he said yesterday: What we don't want is cheap populism, He said we do not want to sink into that. He continued: Promising easy solutions is no answer-it's not courageous to say you're going to cut taxes. In saying that Mr Hyde was talking about a particular issue, that of taxes. The point that I think he would make and would have made if he had been in the Opposition, sadly lacking these days, is that these issues require some determination, some intellectual rigour and some recognition that things will not be corrected overnight. Senator Walters —It took us years to get rid of the Whitlam Government and it will take us years to recover from this one. Senator BUTTON —I am not assisted by the contribution from Senator Walters, but I am sure that if she has a discussion with Senator Collard he will ask a better question tomorrow. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to the level of bankruptcies in the State of Queensland? Is it a fact that under the stewardship of the resigning Premier of Queensland, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, there was a rise of some 29 per cent in the number of bankruptcies between the six months to December 1985 and the six months to December last year? Senator WALSH —I understand that it is a fact that bankruptcies for the second six months of 1986 were 29 per cent higher than they had been for the second six months of 1985. Indeed, in those two years Queensland accounted for 45 per cent of the increase in bankruptcies in the country. That reflects the general sickness of the Queensland economy and is indicated by such economic realities as the fact that Queensland has the second highest unemployment rate in Australia, the highest on the mainland, even though it pays the lowest wages. So that is an interesting paradox for those who believe that the only thing one needs to do to cure unemployment is to pay lower wages. Queensland already has the lowest wages in the country and the second highest unemployment rate. It has the highest level of per capita public debt of any State, and it is accelerating at a faster rate than any State other than Tasmania. That is the reality behind the rhetoric that comes out of the perpetually open mouth of the Queensland Premier. Queensland has the highest rate of Public Service growth of any government in Australia-so much for small government. Moreover, in the 1985-86 financial year in terms of the total public sector deficit per capita, and it is not the same thing as a Budget deficit, Queensland had the highest increase in per capita debt of any mainland State-a figure of $666 per head compared with New South Wales which, as it so happens, was the lowest at $330. Queensland was beaten in the rate of debt accumulation per capita only by that other bastion of free enterprise, presided over by a Liberal government-Tasmania. Tasmania accumulated public debt in that year to the extent of $844 per capita compared with $666 in Queensland. The real problem in Queensland ultimately, unless something is done to change the direction or practice of government in that State, is not the bankruptcy of private business, but the bankruptcy of the State. Senator CHANEY —My question to the Minister for Finance follows the answer he has just given and his reliance on the number of bankruptcies as a measure of the success or failure of a government. Is the Minister aware that in all mainland States except Queensland there is a Labor government? Australia-wide is it a fact that, comparing the number of bankruptcies in the first half of the 1986-87 financial year to a year before, there has been an increase of 35 per cent? Is that half-year bankruptcy result the highest ever recorded in Australia and in those States with Labor governments? Are we looking at the prospect of Australia's largest ever number of bankruptcies, an horrific number of 8,000 businesses going broke this year, due to the Government's policies? Do this half year's figures follow last year's record breaking results of 6,408 bankruptcies, which were also the highest ever recorded and which, of course, took place under the Minister's Labor Government? Senator WALSH —I was hoping I would get a question from Senator Chaney before the end of the first Question Time. Of course it is true, as Senator Button has already said today and many others have said before, that the Australian economy is going through a difficult period. It is also true, not surprisingly, that that has resulted in an increase in the number of bankruptcies, and Queensland just happens to have more than there are anywhere else. The solution offered by the Opposition to the problems of the economy in general is a watered down version of Joh Petersen's snake oil. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. There is a clear direction contained in the Standing Orders against debating a question. The Minister was asked a straightforward question relating to numbers of bankruptcies, including in Labor States. He is now proceeding to enter into a debate and using expressions such as `snake oil', in the typical way the Minister does. I ask you to keep the Minister to answering the question which was directed to him and not to debate the matter in a way that is prohibited by Standing Orders. The PRESIDENT —Order! Standing order 100 clearly states that no senator shall debate the matter. I ask Senator Walsh to observe that standing order and reply to Senator Chaney in the areas to which the question related. Senator WALSH —I have said, Mr President, that we are going through difficult economic times, and it is not surprising that there should be an increase in bankruptcies in those circumstances. Senator Chaney made some reference to interest rates, or if he did not do so there was some reference to interest rates by way of interjection. Interest rates, as Senator Button has already said, are influenced by a great number of factors, including-and I would not want to place too much emphasis on this-the accumulated level of public debt, the servicing costs of which must be met out of every Budget. In that context I think it is instructive to note, as Mr Steele Hall, the Liberal Party member for Boothby, said earlier this month: During those Fraser years as a financial conservative I watched with dismay the deterioration of our finances and with others I was astonished at the size of the deficit that was handed down when the Fraser administration cashed in its chips. As a financial conservative Mr Hall was astonished at the size of the deficit that was handed down when the Fraser Government cashed in its chips. Who was the Treasurer when the Fraser Government cashed in its chips? Who was the Treasurer who left that financial burden on the Government that succeeded him? It was none other than the temporary Leader of the Liberal Party. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order. The Minister is clearly debating the question. Senator WALSH —I have finished my answer. Senator SIDDONS —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Why has the Government allowed the recent spate of media takeovers to go ahead when the legislation which will make these takeovers legal has not yet passed the Senate? Senator BUTTON —I do not represent the Minister for Communications in this place, and I shall certainly obtain a detailed and sophisticated answer to that question from the Minister, but for the life of me I do not know what the Government might have done about stopping them. I am not sure that a Commonwealth Government has powers to interfere in the operations of the marketplace in a way which is implied in Senator Siddons's question. However, I shall seek to obtain a more detailed answer from the Minister for Communications. Senator LEWIS —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the report of the Minister's interview with Lim Say Boon published in the Australian today, in which the Minister said that Australia lacked entrepreneurs, our manufacturers faced their last chance, and in many industries of quality competitiveness, of marketing skills, of entrepreneurial skills generally, quality control and after sales service are things we have never been geared up to deal with. One of the many examples is Pacific Dunlop's boost to earnings by 26 per cent. In the words of that company's chairman many of our entrepreneurs find it more profitable to do business overseas on the basis of lower tax rates, particularly in Asia where operations hold pioneer status and attract virtually no tax. Does the Minister agree that the tax burden on Australian businesses is one of the many factors holding back our manufacturers? What will the Government do about this burden on them? Senator BUTTON —I suppose I did say most of the things in the Australian article which Senator Lewis asked me about. I am not sure that I used the expression `manufacturers last chance'. I think that was the headline of the article. It may have been a loose interpretation of what I said. The operations of Pacific Dunlop for example, to which Senator Lewis referred, are carried on in a number of countries: The United States, Thailand, Malaysia, Britain and so on. The interesting thing about that company is that it has sought to develop manufacturing industries in Australia in which it regards the Australian economy as being most competitive with other countries. A particular example is the Pulsar battery. Dunlop has embarked on its production within Australia as a prime manufacturing source whereas other products are made in other countries. It seems to me to be an intelligent way to go about a manufacturing operation of the size of Dunlop Olympic. It is all very well to talk about tax holidays in some South East Asian countries. Singapore has been the great exponent of the tax holiday. Indeed, it is a source of considerable envy by a variety of other countries. In discussions with the Singaporean authorities they will say that it is better for them to provide a tax holiday in terms of very substantial revenue forgone than to have an unemployment problem on an island the size of Singapore. So what is happening is that by the provision of tax holidays in Singapore a very big subsidy is going into wages. That alleviates any possible unemployment burden. Senator Lewis —You are not giving a tax holiday; you are socking it to them. Senator BUTTON —Let me answer the question in my own way and the honourable senator, to use his expression, can sock it to me later. The point I am seeking to get to is that there are appropriate remedies and approaches for different economies and different countries. The question is whether the Australian tax regime on companies by and large is competitive with other countries of equivalent manufacturing sophistication and so on. The answer to that question probably is yes. There are a lot of what we might call optics in tax structures. The United States has recently announced and introduced a lower company tax structure. At first glance it looks very attractive. At the same time it has abolished a wide range of concessions for industry. If we compare that with the Australian situation and take into account the substantial State taxes which are imposed on companies and individuals in the US we will find that there is very little difference. In fact, the Australian situation is probably marginally better than that in the United States. It is easy to say that that is rubbish but I ask the honourable senator to examine the facts. Senator Lewis —Look at what our States are doing. You are topping it off. Senator BUTTON —I am talking about company income tax. Senator Lewis —The companies are looking at the tax problems overall. Senator BUTTON —I understand that but the honourable senator is not looking at the tax problem overall. He is looking at the optics of tax holidays in Singapore and lower rates of company tax in the US. Senator Lewis —I was just giving an example. Senator BUTTON —That was the example the honourable senator cited. Senator Chaney —A comparative tax example. Senator BUTTON —I can get on all right with Senator Lewis without any help from Senator Chaney. Senator Lewis asked a question and I am answering it. He did not say anything about the comparative tax burden. He talked about tax holidays in Singapore and increased company tax rates in Australia. Senator Lewis is talking about company tax rates. I am answering the question about company tax rates. If the honourable senator wants to swing in water rates and other obscure charges imposed by State governments I guess he can start by looking at Queensland for examples of those sorts of taxes which are very high. I regard Senator Lewis's question as being serious. I have attempted to give him a serious answer. I will try to provide him with further information on comparative company tax levels, taking into account concessions and overall aggregates in respect of taxation. Senator COOK —My congratulations on your appointments to you, Mr President, and to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans, to whom I direct this question. Is the Minister concerned at the level of State taxes and charges levied on mining and resources industries in Queensland? Do the mining and resources industries in Queensland approve the taxing levels and regard them as being an incentive to their endeavours? Does the real level of resources tax in Queensland give credibility to Premier Bjelke-Petersen's nationwide campaign for lower taxes and flat taxes in Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —The basic reality that has to be borne in mind whenever we hear the Queensland Premier talking about lower or flatter taxes-uttering what the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Steve Hatton, described a couple of days ago as simplistic gibberish-is that the Queensland Government has increased its revenue from its own sources of State taxes, charges, fees, fines and the profits of State-run operations at a faster rate than any other State in Australia. According to Bureau of Statistics figures which, quite conveniently for all of us, were gathered together by Kenneth Davidson in the Age a couple of days age, Queensland revenue from the various State taxing sources increased at an average annual real rate of growth of 7 per cent over the last six years compared with the average for all States of less than 4 per cent. The most significant part of Queensland's tax revenue, from the point of view of my portfolio and the nation's interest in effective resource industries, comes from the State's very heavy coal transport charges, particularly on rail freight. The Queensland Chamber of Mines, which I am sure Senator Bjelke-Petersen and her colleagues here would accept as authoritative, has estimated that the profit or tax component-in addition to cost recovery-of the $584m that was collected as rail freight in Queensland in 1984-85 was $364m or 62 per cent. Again, a recent report by one of the major coal producers in Queensland also estimated that railway profits amounted to something like 67 per cent of its total freight costs. Queensland has what appears to be the highest tax regime in the world on coal exports. Of course, that is occurring at a time when the industry is fighting against very considerable international odds to maintain its international competitiveness. What has to be the case, as I have stated as a Federal Minister over and over again, is that taxes and charges on the coal industry imposed in this way at the State level have to be reviewed and replaced by more equitable and rational taxation schemes. I want to make it clear that the Commonwealth Government is not opposed to taxation as such of resource industries but taxation which is open to the public view and which does not discourage production is much better than the hidden profit or concealed system of taxation, such as that which operates through rail freight with its massive taxation component on Queensland coal production. It is one thing to call for lower income tax, but when a person calls for that at the same time as imposing a wide range of consumer taxes; imposes taxes at a totally unconscionable rate on a vital export industry; uses those taxes to support what is the most profligate public spending State government in this country; and spouts taxation discipline at a time when, as Steve Hatton reminded us, the person is standing on the steps of an $8m aircraft which costs $1,800 of Queensland taxpayers' money per hour to fly, it is proper to describe that person as a charlatan in exactly the way that every conservative spokesman in this country has been doing. Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: I ask the Minister to withdraw the expression that he just used about the Premier of Queensland. It is quite unparliamentary and it should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Under standing order 418 the word `charlatan' is offensive and I would ask the Minister to withdraw it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am happy to do so; I will substitute the expression `purveyor of simplistic gibberish' which appears to be, by comparison, perfectly acceptable to the Opposition. Senator MESSNER —Is the Minister for Finance aware that the marginal rate of personal tax for taxpayers on average weekly earnings has increased from 30 per cent in 1983 to about 45 per cent in 1986-an increase of 50 per cent-and this all during the term of the Hawke Labor Government? As this is the result of `bracket creep' and its effect is significantly increasing the total amount of tax paid by thousands of ordinary Australians, how does the Government plan specifically to address this problem which cannot be covered by the tax reductions foreshadowed for 1 July this year and return these tax increments to honest Australians who are struggling to maintain their standards of living? Senator WALSH —If people pick a particular level of income where 0.001 per cent of taxpayers might actually be found and if they then select the time period carefully as well, they can come up with what superficially seem to be quite significant figures, as Senator Messner has done. However, the fact is that any responsible government-a category which categorically excludes the last coalition Government in Australia under the Treasurership of the present Leader of the Opposition-must at least in the long term require that its level of expenditure be matched by its income. This Government has been moving in that direction ever since it came into office. When we came into office we inherited a $9.6 billion impending deficit-that is what we inherited from Mr Howard. If Mr Howard had applied a rate of taxation which was necessary to fund his extravagant spending, then the rates of tax imposed under that Government would have been very much higher than they were. But Mr Howard opted for fiscal irresponsibility in the same way that-- Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr President. The Minister is clearly misrepresenting the facts since the Government in which he is Minister for Finance has brought down the highest spending, highest taxing Budgets in Australia's history. None of Mr Howard's Budgets were at that level of expenditure or taxation. This debating of the questions which has ensued during this Question Time tends to make a farce of a procedure which is intended for obtaining relevant information from Government Ministers. I suggest that you call the Minister to order and sit him down. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I have no power to direct a Minister as to how to answer a question. However, I remind all Ministers of standing order 100 which deals with debating the issue. Senator WALSH —I do not believe-and I note that you, Mr President, agree-that I was debating the question. I was simply pointing out that had a level of taxation appropriate to the level of expenditure been imposed in the final years of the Fraser Government, then the tax rates would have been very much higher than they were. That Government opted for fiscal irresponsibility and a rapidly increasing level of Budget deficit in its last years in office. In closing, I simply note that in Opposition the coalition continues to preach exactly the same policy. It has a $10 billion credibility gap. We have the obvious snake oil merchant from the north peddling his snake oil and we have the official Opposition peddling a slightly watered down version. Senator BUTTON —At Question Time today Senator Siddons asked me a question about media takeovers and I said that I would try to provide a further answer. It is the Government's intention to introduce legislation to cover these matters in these sittings. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) made that clear in his statement on 27 November last year. The market, through recent activity, has offered the firmest possible vote of confidence in the nature and intent of the Government's proposals. It is clear that the Minister's announcement has been closely scrutinised by all purchasers who are aware that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has the discretion to allow owners to exceed present ownership limits in view of the Government's expressed intention to change the law. The law has not been broken and the market is operating in the manner which the Government expected when it made these changes. The media industry in Australia is intensely competitive and our cross-ownership rules will ensure that it remains that way, while not interfering with the freedom of the Press and while allowing owners within either television or newspapers to obtain the benefits of economies of scale. With the plethora of television, radio, magazine and newspaper owners now active in the market, no individual can dominate the media industry in Australia, either in terms of informing people or in terms of advertising. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator MESSNER —I refer to an article that appeared in the Business Review Weekly of 13 February 1987. In that article it was suggested that I may have alluded to the possibility that the next Liberal-National coalition government would abolish the foreign tax credit system and the Government's proposed dividend imputation system. Any comments that I have made in relation to the foreign tax credit system and the proposed dividend imputation system have been in regard to the need for Australia's tax system to become internationally competitive. Therefore, my comments were directed to the linkage between the two, rather than any of the specific and individual items themselves. I believe that the linkage provides difficulties in the future conduct of competition and especially competition arising from overseas, but never would I have suggested that we would seek to remove the dividend imputation system. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Earlier today I announced the ministerial representation insofar as the Senate was concerned. In doing so, I did not have the opportunity to announce that Senator Gareth Evans has been elected as Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Manager of Government Business in the Senate. Senator Durack —We expected that. Senator BUTTON —I am glad; it was abnormally astute of you. In doing so I make the point that Senator Evans will continue with his former representational role in respect of Attorney-General, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, which he takes from Senator Grimes, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-It is my pleasure to announce that, following a recent ballot of members, I was re-elected Federal Parliamentary Leader of the Australian Democrats and Senator Michael Macklin was elected Deputy Leader. Since I have already congratulated you, Mr President, and Senator Tate on your elevations, I would now like to extend my congratulations and those of my Party to Senator Evans and say that I have been impressed by his statement that he intends not to lose his temper. I would also ask that he does not lose his sense of humour in the process. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(4.49) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The crisis that this Industries Assistance Commission report addresses would not have arisen had not the Government, against the advice of the Australian Democrats and others, insisted on applying the import parity price formula to both old and new oil. That formula, when combined with the high excise on crude oil-up to 87 per cent of the import parity price-was destined to create government dependence on crude oil excise as a prime revenue source. That has now created a major distortion of the economy and an economic time bomb in this community which we will rue bitterly before many more years have passed. In 1985-86 crude oil excise raised $4.3 billion-some 10.7 per cent of total tax revenue. That is what I mean by a distortion. It is no secret that this source of revenue will dry up in a few years. By the early 1990s the Bass Strait oil reserves will fall by 50 per cent. Unless there is a major new discovery, present rates of usage will have consumed all of Australia's commercial oil reserves by early next century. We have hopes, I know, of the Timor Sea, but so far they have not been realised in the sense that the Bass Strait field was. The Government would have been forgiven this imposition of a flat tax on all petrol users if there had been some attempt by either the Fraser Government or the Hawke Government to apply the proceeds usefully. This has not happened. Only some 25 per cent of that revenue has been spent on roads. We had the opportunity to spend the money on liquid fuel substitutes. Year after year that matter has been debated in this place, whereas petrol is now made in New Zealand, from natural gas in the Maui field, giving that country a permanent source of liquid fuel in emergency or strategic situations. Those options were there. I quote from my speech in this place on 15 May 1980-six years ago-when I made this point to the Government: The options were there . . . based on established technology and the best advice we could get in the world-from Davy Pacific Pty Ltd which is building methanol plants elsewhere in the world- including Soviet Russia. I continued: For $258m the Government could have got on stream two refineries which would have produced M15 for Australia at something like 20c a litre or less. Those refineries would have been producing a petrol extender for this country now if only we had had a government that had the vision to look beyond the next pay day or the next long weekend. We do not have that. Meanwhile, there has been a collapse in the international price of oil, which was anticipated by everybody except the Government. The net effect of these changes has been a collapse in the oil excise revenue and the prospect of a further deterioration in the next decade or so. To compensate for lost crude oil excise revenue the Government has increased the excise on petroleum by 10c a litre to a level which, in the IAC's opinion, is quite damaging to the economy. The major conclusions in this report are: Petroleum excises are imposing very high rates of tax on use of petroleum products, and the excises have significant economic costs, particularly given the extensive use of petroleum products as intermediate inputs to production of other goods and services and the substantial difference in excise rates between petroleum products. The major proposal is that rates of excise should be reduced to levels more in line with taxes on other goods. The following point is made: However, because of the large amounts of revenue involved, such changes should be considered in the context of broader changes to the commodity tax system. That is what is meant by `an economic time bomb'. It is one with which this Government, or whatever government wins the next election, will have to cope somehow, and I do not envy it that prospect. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.54) —This is a major report from the Industries Assistance Commission. Its conclusions are very salutary indeed. Certainly the Opposition would not be drawing from it the same conclusions that Senator Mason seems to have done. Clearly the problem at the heart of the price of petrol is the present Government's policies, but not the policy of world parity pricing of petrol, which is inevitable if Australia is to have and pursue a proper and vigorous exploration industry. Under the policies which apparently the Australian Democrats would pursue, there would be no financial incentive whatever for the industry to expend the enormous sums of money on exploration and development, particularly off-shore but also on-shore. This report is all about the Government's policy of taxing petroleum products. Its conclusions are certainly worth noting, namely, that petroleum excises are imposing very high rates of tax on the use of petroleum products, that petroleum product excises should not be levied on intermediate use, and that excises such as these have a significant economic cost, particularly given the extensive use of petroleum products in the production of other goods and services. The report identifies the undesirable effects of changes to the rate structure of excises, of implementing general intermediate use exemptions and of extending further exemptions on an ad hoc basis. With very high rates, we have all these ad hoc exercises as well. This report underlines the concern which the Opposition has had, and which it has expressed, about the way in which the Government's policy has developed, particularly in the last year or so when there has been a 40 per cent drop in the world parity pricing of petrol. That in itself is of great significance to the petroleum industry. As we know, exploration has been greatly curtailed as a result. What to do about that is a separate problem. The Government has certainly known what to do about compensating itself for the loss of revenue from the value of crude oil production by Australian producers; it has simply loaded up excise rates to compensate itself. The Government could not care two hoots about the effect on the industry, and it certainly could not care two hoots about the effect on motorists. Australian motorists have been able to figure out this problem without the benefit of the IAC report. It is interesting that such a body as the IAC has come to the conclusions which clearly the average motorist understands and which the Opposition has been emphasising. Australian Bureau of Statistics data on average retail prices of select petroleum products shows that in March 1983 the average price of a litre of petrol in Sydney was 43.9c; that was when this Government came to office. In December 1986 that figure had reached 54.9c-in other words, an increase of 11c per litre in the price of petrol during the life of this Government, in spite of and in defiance of Prime Minister Hawke's undertaking when he was elected in 1983 that he would reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre. This increase occurred at the end of 1986 when, compared with some periods, the price of oil received by most large Australian and world producers had fallen by as much as 50 per cent. This report gives dramatic emphasis to the way in which this Government has loaded up its own revenue raising when the motorist and intermediate producers using petrol should have had significant relief and when Australian costs of production should have been significantly reduced. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.59) —I rise to make a few remarks concerning the matter which Senator Mason talked about. The petrol excise is an exercise which raises something like 10.7 per cent of the total tax revenue. In the report the Industries Assistance Commission claims that it is 8 per cent of the total Commonwealth tax revenue. Somehow there seems to have been some mistake, as far as I can see, in calculating it against the last estimated Budget figures. Various things can flow from a petrol excise. It would be possible to use it or see it as a way of making certain that we save this scarce resource. It is also claimed in the report that road construction and maintenance was one of the major reasons for setting up this particular tax. However, when we look at the report and the figures in it we find that only 25 per cent of the petrol excise is going to road construction and maintenance. I would like to mention a couple of other purposes for which I believe the excise measure might be used and some areas which it is in fact affecting. The excise as it is currently levied falls at approximately 70 per cent on petrol and diesel; 35 to 45 per cent on aviation fuel; 11 to 17 per cent for fuel oils, heating oils and lighting kerosene; and zero for liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas and a range of other products which are predominantly used as industrial inputs. This is a useful distribution of costs so that our industries are not severely disadvantaged by this tax. However, there are much more impressive or useful methods of raising money, and the report itself suggests a broad-based consumption tax or a value added tax as a major way of raising money. Both of these are canvassed by the IAC in the report. They are particularly recommended since they do not have the distorting effect on industry which the IAC claims the petrol excise to have. I would like to add three other revenue raising methods which the Australian Democrats have in their policies and which would allow us to go back to a sensible pricing policy for petrol. The first is a materials added tax which would fall on the raw materials of a business. It would be based on the total turnover of the business minus all of the inputs on which a tax had already been paid and minus the cost of labour. This, I believe, would be extremely useful in getting Australia back to full employment. The petrol excise is completely neutral in terms of giving us extra employment. We should be looking at resource rental taxes and we should also be looking at taxes on moneys leaving the country, to stop all the rorts which various large companies which are operating transfer pricing arrangements and off-shore taxation havens are perpetrating on the Australian people. I believe it is extremely important to tax those organisations rather than the ordinary motorist, the person on the street. This excise is a tax on the ordinary motorist; it is a tax that hits anybody who wants to travel. There are some advantages in having the tax in that it tries to conserve a scarce resource. But we are not putting the money into developing new sources of energy. As Senator Mason said, we are not putting it into developing alcohol as a fuel; we are not putting it into solar energy; we are not putting it into alternative uses of rubbish to generate energy. I believe it is important that we should look at these options. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.04) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Early last year I pointed out the excessive in- validity retirement rate within the Commonwealth Public Service, stressing that in some areas, for example Victoria, twice as many people retired from the Commonwealth Public Service due to invalidity as retired on reaching retirement age. Regrettably, the latest statistics show a continuation of that very expensive trend towards invalidity retirement rather than age retirement, but I have to concede that in Victoria at last something has been done to stop the blatant rip-off, the incredible ramp, that has taken place in that State. But despite some reduction in the number of claimed neuroses and bad backs that have prompted people to leave the Public Service through invalidity-a reduction of modest proportions, but nonetheless a step in the right direction-the fact is that throughout the Commonwealth Public Service there is a continuation of this trend towards more people being retired from the Commonwealth Public Service through invalidity than through reaching retirement age. The latest statistics in the report of the Commissioner for Superannuation reveal that in 1985-86, 3,027 people retired from the Commonwealth Public Service due to invalidity-in many cases, I might say, due to alleged invalidity-as against only 2,599 reaching age retirement at 60 years or over. The amount of money involved is absolutely appalling, a disgrace. Something like $300m a year goes in invalidity payments and it appears from these statistics that a substantial proportion of those invalidity payments have not been properly obtained in the sense that the differences between the State figures clearly indicate that in some areas there is a ramp relating to alleged neuroses which continues. It appears to me that in many instances this ramp is conducted in collusion with management within the Public Service and is used as a convenient way to get rid of people who perhaps are surplus to the requirement. The unfortunate element of this is that in the case of early retirement over the age of 55 there can be a substantial increase in the pension if in fact that retirement is through invalidity. On page 101 of the Commissioner's report the extraordinary situation is revealed that in New South Wales 991 people retired as a result of reaching retirement age last year and only 580 retired through invalidity-in other words, almost twice as many people in New South Wales retired through age rather than invalidity-but in Victoria only 513 retired through age but 887 retired through invalidity. This desire to have early retirement due to invalidity is catching on in Queensland. Three hundred-and-three people retired as a result of age and 404 through invalidity. In South Australia 236 people retired through age but 301 retired through invalidity. In Western Australia-another good example of a rip-off-124 people retired through reaching retirement age and 244 through reaching invalidity. This situation is intolerable and must not be allowed to continue. It is a measure by which the taxpayer is being ripped off. It is extraordinary that in Western Australia we have an invalidity retirement rate of 1.24 per 100 contributors as against only, say, 0.66 in New South Wales. The Government has in fact made some tentative steps towards correcting this rip-off, as a result of pressure from the Waste Watch Committee. I simply say to the Government: It had better do much better than it has so far, because the Waste Watch Committee will not allow this matter to proceed uncommented on, unnoted and uncriticised. This Government has simply not done enough to correct what is, I believe, a major source of leakage of government money-$300m a year going in invalidity payments, a large proportion of which I believe to be improperly obtained. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) -I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) -I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate of 27 November 1986, I lay on the table the second report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which was presented to the President on 22 December 1986. In accordance with the terms of the resolution, the President authorised the printing and circulation of the report. I also lay on the table eight volumes of transcript of evidence and the minutes of proceedings. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.13) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This is the second report of the current Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The basis of our report was the Commonwealth Electoral Act as it affected the 1984 election. Although 156 recommendations emanate from this fairly lengthy report, in many ways there is really nothing radical in it. The recommendations involve just a question of fine tuning rather than a general overhaul of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. To coin a phrase that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) often uses, it is to roll out the bumps and fill in the potholes and nothing more. Today I just want to highlight several of the key recommendations of the report. The first is the recommendation to this Parliament that a standing committee to overview the electoral process be set up. I know that many honourable senators would take the view that it is not necessary to create many more committees of the Parliament. They take the view that we are almost overburdened by them at the moment. As the Joint Select Committee, which was created in 1983, still has to deal with many areas of the terms of reference attributed to it, there is very little likelihood that the next Parliament will not set up another joint select committee on electoral reform to continue that work. It is the view of the current Committee that we should set up a standing committee to overview continually the democratic processes in this country. We recommend that because there is nothing more vital to the protection of democracy than having a fair system. We believe that a parliamentary committee constantly reviewing the electoral procedures in this country will ensure fairness for all people. The second recommendation which I want to highlight-and it has had some publicity-concerns access to electoral rolls. The Committee believes that electoral rolls, being public documents, should be as widely accessible as possible to the whole public. At the moment, electoral rolls are accessible to Government departments on request. The Australian Electoral Commission can have all sorts of unreal demands placed on it to meet the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. In many ways one can see the Australian Electoral Commission becoming the largest missing persons bureau in this country. The Commission has not been set up for that purpose but it is required by other legislation to supply that sort of information. So we have recommended that members of the public be given the widest possible access so that they can have the same rights as Government departments in this regard. We have also recommended that the Electoral Commission be able to sell the magnetic tapes which contain the electoral roll information. We have done that basically because this information is already made available to political parties. If the information is not made available to everyone else, it will not be long before political parties start selling it through the back door to all sorts of commercial firms. Some firms already have access to all of this information. It is simply a matter of whether they themselves put it on the computer or whether we give them a short cut method. I might note that the one, if one likes, jarring note of this recommendation is the regrettable prospect that we might be deluged with more direct mail and, in particular, direct phone calls. Nevertheless, I think it was an inevitable recommendation. The third area concerns habitation reviews. When we were on the other side of this chamber I remember attacking Liberal Ministers for not having enough habitation reviews and for leaving us in a situation of not cleansing the rolls. That situation not only affects Federal elections but also affects State elections. I can just as confidently predict that people on the opposite side will be getting up and attacking this Government for not having regular enough habitation reviews. Although the reviews are costly processes, we recommend that they must be carried out every year. I can understand that any government would be reluctant on revenue grounds to make a commitment to carry out a habitation review every year. If we want to have a clean democratic process we must have clean rolls. The Committee, whose members represent all political parties and, I would have thought, cover the widest spectrum, unanimously recommended that we have annual habitation reviews. We took a long while to come to a recommendation on a fourth area of controversy in the report-the rights of hospital patients to vote. Many of us have taken the view that the biggest rorting of the electoral system has occurred in nursing homes and the like. It was also equally strongly argued to us that we should not deprive hospital patients of the rights to lodge postal votes, even if polling booths are supplied. Being the Committee it is, we eventually came up with a compromise that, I guess, half satisfied everyone. We agreed that postal voting should be allowed to continue in hospitals and that mobile polling booths should be provided. But we recommend that some sanctions be placed on owners and controllers of nursing homes who might place duress on patients to vote in a particular manner that suits them. Obviously, when we were asked to review the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the most contentious issue at the time was the high informal vote emanating from the 1984 election. It has been argued that that informal vote had many causes. I do not think the Electoral Reform Committee could be any more conclusive than anyone else. Our general view is that we do not believe that this result will be replicated at a future Federal election. A variety of suggestions have been made as to why the informal vote was so high in the House of Representatives election. The most obvious suggestion is that three different elections were being held at one time-a House of Representatives election, a Senate election and referendums. People became confused. Added to that, the voting system for the Senate was changed very substantially and that also tended to confuse people. The issue that had the most effect was the one-sided advertising of the new Senate system without a corresponding emphasis that the existing House of Representatives system had been maintained. It has been put to me and to the Committee that the high informal vote in 1984 was a result of a protest vote. More particularly, of course, it was argued that people who were upset by the issue of nuclear disarmament and who did not have a candidate in the lower House in fact voted informally for House of Representatives candidates and formally for Senate candidates. I reject that proposition. I have studied the figure. The informality pattern was exactly the same for the six seats in which the Nuclear Disarmament Party ran a lower House candidate. I believe that with a sustained educative process leading up to the next election we will see the House of Representatives informal vote returned to normal-around 2 per cent. I do not want anyone to overlook the fact that the Senate informal vote-notoriously high at 10 per cent-was reduced to below 5 per cent for the first time since 1949 when proportional representation was first used in elections. That is an achievement which I think has been overlooked by many. I want to move on to a couple of other issues. One issue is the very vexed question of public Commission funding and disclosure. We received evidence and allegations from people that the 1983-84 Act was not honoured entirely, that people found loopholes in the Act and that people did not honour the disclosure provisions. I generally put some credence to that view but I say to honourable senators: If they expect legislation to block off every potential loophole in the disclosure laws they will have the largest piece of legislation ever in this Parliament. I suspect that it would take-maybe the new Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party here could assist me-about 40 draftsmen two years, and then some smart cookie with white shoes from Queensland would take about a day to walk through the Act again. We take this approach: We have stated the general principles of disclosure and we have set up a degree of regulation of that in the Act. The only power we have to ask people, morally and otherwise, to adhere to that Act is to issue this warning: Any future electoral reform committee, whether it is run by a Labor Party government majority or a Liberal Party government majority, reserves the right to investigate any of these matters with the full powers of the Parliament. So if any of the apparatchiks in the political parties were thinking of flouting the law and dodging around it they might well find themselves before a parliamentary committee with its full powers-which I understand are almost limitless in terms of being able to produce documents and other things-to track through these abuses. So those who set up special funds before the last election and then borrowed money from the banks so that the original sources could not be tracked through are warned now by this Committee that in a future parliament they may have to account for their actions. Another point I want to make relates to some recommendations about the Court of Disputed Returns. We think this area, emanating from many of the judgments from the Nunawading case, has been cleaned up. I do not oppose any of the judgments made in the Nunawading case but, clearly, some of the problems that arose at that Court of Disputed Returns have consequences for Federal ballots. Basically, we are saying two things: Firstly, any person who votes in an election may have his or her ballot perused by a court of disputed returns to determine whether the result would have been one way or the other. At the moment, judges are precluded from opening the ballot papers of disputed votes. Secondly, we recommend, in terms of a deadlock, that a draw from a hat or a toss of a coin is just not satisfactory. If there is a tie, immediately the Australian Electoral Commission will have a further recount from which it is currently debarred by the legislation. If the deadlock continues, the Electoral Commission itself will take the whole matter to the Court of Disputed Returns. It can obviously rule one candidate the winner or the loser or order a new election. In conclusion, I would like to thank all the members and senators who served on this Committee. In some ways it is a strange sort of committee. It is not a very well disciplined committee because we wander off into philosophical discussions mid-term, leaving witnesses stranded and Hansard bemused. Nevertheless, we have derived some enjoyment from the Committee and the debates that have occurred. I would like especially to thank the Australian Electoral Commission for the contribution that it has made, in particular, Dr Colin Hughes, Mr Andrejs Cirulis and Mr Michael Maley, all of whom provided immense research material and were always available to assist the Committee. I give my heartfelt thanks to Mr Donald Nairn, the Secretary of the Committee, who, as I have said, worked very hard under trying circumstances, given the composition of the Committee. He worked very hard in producing reports and organising the Committee's work. On behalf of all Committee members I extend my thanks to him and also to Mrs Kemp for the work she put into the report as well in terms of typing, et cetera. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator COLSTON) —I present a paper entitled `Business of the Senate, 1986'. Ordered that the paper be printed. Assent to the following Bills reported: Cheques and Payment Orders Bill 1986 Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill 1986 Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment Bill 1986 Australian Capital Territory Tax (Transfers of Marketable Securities) Bill 1986 Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 Pig Industry Bill 1986 Pig Industry (Transitional Provisions Bill) 1986 Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Repeal Bill 1986 Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1986 Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill 1986 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 Banking Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1986 Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 Social Security Amendment (Reciprocity with Italy) Bill 1986 Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Bill 1986 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 Consideration resumed from 5 December 1986. The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is considering three Bills together-the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1985, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1985 and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1985. The Committee is considering first the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill. AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION BILL 1985 Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.27) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 2, clause 3, lines 1 and 2, leave out the definition of ``appointed member'', insert the following definitions: `` `appointed member' means a member of the Board other than the Executive Director; `Board' means the Board of Directors of the Organisation;''. (2) Page 2, clause 3, line 3, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (3) Page 2, clause 3, lines 4 and 5, leave out the definition of ``Chief Executive Officer''. (4) Page 2, clause 3, line 7, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (5) Page 2, clause 3, line 9, leave out the definition of ``Executive'', insert the following definition: `` `Executive Director' means the Executive Director of the Organisation;''. (6) Page 2, clause 3, line 11, leave out ``Chief Executive Officer'', insert ``Executive Director''. (7) Page 2, clause 3, line 13, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. There are seven amendments to this clause standing in the name of the Government. There will be quite a number of further Government amendments as we move through the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill. Spending just a moment explaining what those amendments are all about-there are a large number of them-might avoid the necessity for me to rise to my feet further because I believe that they are all uncontroversial. The major substance of these amendments relates to the insertion of a new provision into a renamed Part VI of the Bill which deals with the establishment of a Safety Review Committee with the functions of reviewing and assessing the effectiveness of the standards, practices and procedures adopted by the organisations to ensure the safety of its operations and to investigate any matter arising out of the operations of the organisation that may have adverse consequences or implications in relation to the safety of members of the staff of the organisation or the general public. Other amendments, of which there are many numerically, relate to the change in titles of the Executive and Chief Executive Officer to Board of Directors and Executive Director respectively, which changes are intended to reflect the greater emphasis that the Government wishes to place on the commercial aspects of the organisation. There are further amendments which introduce the power of delegation for the Treasurer in relation to the organisation's borrowing arrangements; which make the powers of delegation of the Minister and others subject to directions; which require approvals for borrowings and dealings with securities to be in writing; which specify further powers of the Minister which may not be delegated; which require disclosure of interests by the Executive Director; which clarify the wording of certain sub-clauses; and which correct minor drafting errors. I acknowledge that there are a large number of these amendments. It is not usual for there to be so many introduced at the Committee stage of a debate. I think this simply reflects the very long and tortuous history that this legislation has had in terms of the time that has elapsed since its first introduction into the Parliament and the opportunity that there accordingly has been for fine tuning and reconsideration of certain matters; none of which, as will be apparent from what I have said, are matters of great substance, but I think they are all matters which improve the Bill. I should also indicate that some of these matters are the result of discussion with the Australian Democrats, in particular, whose constructive contribution to our deliberations on this Bill has been much appreciated over the 12 months that it has taken us to get to the final stages of this debate. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.30) —To facilitate a more speedy passage of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1985 I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that apart from our two amendments, which I will move in due course, the Opposition will support the amendments which have been put forward by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). We have looked at the amendments, both in terms of the minor technical matters and the more substantive proposals dealing with the safety review committee, and we believe that they lead to improvement in the legislation. Therefore, we will be giving them our support. I also indicate-this will not come as a surprise, I am sure-that it will not be our intention to support any of the amendments to this legislation which have been put forward by the Australian Democrats. As Senator Evans has rightly said, this Bill has been debated over a very prolonged period. A number of senators, myself included, have made a series of speeches, interrupted by various other pieces of legislation, to try to get this Bill passed. However, I indicate that at the third reading stage of the Bill the shadow Minister, Senator Durack, will put down an overview of the position on behalf of the Opposition to conclude the debate so as to make clear the role we see ANSTO playing in the future and to make some concluding comments about the legislation as a whole. However, I simply indicate at this stage that we will support the Government's amendments as the Bill now proceeds through the chamber. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.32) —The Australian Democrats will also support the amendments. I note the kind words of the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, directed towards the Democrats. I note that he has mellowed and matured in his new position of Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Lewis —I don't see why. They vote with you on every important issue. Senator SANDERS —We remain critical when the Minister deserves it, but in general I think he does a good job for the people of Australia. We will support the Government on these amendments. As has been noted, we will move our amendments and also seek to amend the Government's amendments, specifically government amendment No. 38, which we will come to later in the proceedings. The Government has our support for the amendments before the Chair at this moment. Amendments agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4 agreed to. Clause 5 (Functions of Organisation). Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.33) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 3, clause 5, paragraph (1) (a), after ``in relation to'', insert: ``all aspects of the peaceful uses of the nuclear fuel cycle, including''. (2) Page 3, clause 5, paragraph (1) (b), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(b) to encourage and facilitate the commercial application and utilisation of the results of research and development into all aspects of the peaceful uses of the nuclear fuel cycle;''. The purpose of these amendments is, firstly, we believe, to seek to make it clear that we are not in favour of any attempt to limit the role and scope of the research work and activity that may be pursued by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, and, secondly, to seek to encourage and to facilitate the commercial application and utilisation of the results of research and development into all aspects of peaceful uses of the nuclear fuel cycle. By way of example I think I ought to mention three areas in which we would see ANSTO playing, we hope, a constructive role. The most important, in our belief, is that ANSTO ought to be playing a major role in the field of public education. The greatest problem of the nuclear industry at the moment is the mass of what I would call disinformation put about by people who are opposed to various aspects of the nuclear industry and to various aspects of the development of the nuclear industry from the point of exploration for uranium, the development of uranium mines, right the way through to those who are opposed to the establishment and maintenance of nuclear facilities, in particular nuclear power reactors. One of the reasons why this campaign has from time to time generated so much emotion and a great deal more heat than light has been, quite simply, that proponents of the nuclear fuel cycle and of the nuclear industry in general tend to fall into two particular categories, one of which comprises those who are clearly arguing from the point of view of self-interest. That is why, despite the excellent material that is put out by the Uranium Information office, it tends to be disregarded. People view it as simply serving the commercial interests of uranium miners and explorers who have established the Uranium Information Office. Also, material comes from very eminent scientists, people who are leaders in their field but who, nevertheless, are discredited either because of their political views, unrelated to their scientific views, or because they tend to speak and to promote their cause in language which is simply unintelligible even to the intelligent lay member of the community. We would certainly hope that one of the roles to be played by ANSTO would be to make public information available in a form which is reasonably easy to understand, bearing in mind the complexity of the issues which have to be addressed, and which at the same time is scientifically unassailable in terms of its factual character and its intellectual integrity. The second area in which we believe ANSTO ought to be able to continue to promote its activities is the irradiation of food substances. I propose to come back to that matter because I think in many ways it ought to be dealt with more specifically when we are dealing with the proposed amendment to be moved by the Australian Democrats to this clause. The third area that I would be concerned to ensure is given the widest possible exploration is the work to be done by ANSTO in the management of waste products, which is very significant. I believe that to a certain extent this is clearly provided for in part of the existing clause 5. Nevertheless-and I think that in many respects this is a matter which could be raised more suitably at a later stage of the debate-further development, in particular the commercial development, of the Synroc project is something to which ANSTO ought to be turning its attention. The two amendments which have been moved on behalf of the Opposition deal with what we believe to be a clear charter to ANSTO to expand the research and development work which it is undertaking. Secondly, we believe that the formula which we are suggesting should replace paragraph (b) is a more directly commercially oriented approach than that which currently stands in the legislation before us. Clause 5(1)(b) of the legislation states that the functions of the Organisation are `to encourage and facilitate the application and utilisation of the results of such research and development'. Our amendment seeks to remove that clause and to replace it with the following: The functions of the Organisation are `to encourage and facilitate the commercial application and utilisation of the results of research and development into all aspects of the peaceful uses of the nuclear fuel cycle'. We believe that that expresses in more cogent and more commercially oriented terms the point which the legislation is otherwise seeking to make. I say in summary in relation to the two amendments that we believe that the way in which we have sought to draw up those amendments will expand the research work and activity to be undertaken by ANSTO. We would not in any way seek to limit that activity. As a result, I commend the two amendments to the Committee. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.40) —The Australian Democrats will oppose these amendments. We are of the opinion that there are no peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It should definitely not be promoted by a government agency. If it were to be promoted by a government agency, it would encounter the same difficulties that were encountered in the United States of America by the then Atomic Energy Commission, which was given the twin goals of promoting and regulating nuclear power. Of course, it could not do so. In regard to the public education aspect, if the uranium miners themselves, with all the money and resources at their command, cannot convince the people of Australia that uranium mining is good for them and nuclear power is safe, I do not think that even the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation could do it. Of course, the reason they cannot convince the people of Australia-or, in fact, the people of the world-that uranium mining is safe is that it is not. Uranium mining is not safe; the enrichment phase is not safe; the use of nuclear power in any way-either in the peaceful or war aspects-is, of course, not safe. So they are defying common sense. It would be fiscally irresponsible, as well as morally reprehensible, for a government agency to try to promote the use of atomic energy. We feel that the Opposition's amendments are flying in the face of common sense. Certainly, we do not believe that ANSTO should be put in a position of encouraging and facilitating the commercial application and utilisation of the results of research and development into all aspects of the peaceful uses of the nuclear fuel cycle. There are no peaceful uses of the nuclear fuel cycle. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.42) — The Government also opposes Senator Puplick's proposed amendments, but I would not wish it to be thought for a moment that our reasons for doing so had any remote connection with those articulated by Senator Sanders. I think we find ourselves inhabiting different planets on this matter, as is so often the case. I have no difficulty at all with anything that Senator Puplick said in support of his amendments. The difficulty I have, however, is that, as drafted, and no doubt as a quite unintended consequence of their operation, the effect would be, if they were to be adopted, to limit the capacity of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation to do things that Senator Puplick would undoubtedly want the Organisation to be able to do. Let me explain why. The first amendment would, as we see it, restrict research and development work under sub- paragraphs 5 (1) (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) respectively to nuclear fuel cycle matters only, rather than those sub-paragraphs being capable, as at the moment, of application to a much wider range of matters than fuel cycle matters. There would be a conflict, for example, so far as sub-paragraph (ii) is concerned, as the use of radioisotopes and isotopic techniques and nuclear radiation in medicine, science, industry, commerce and agriculture would mostly not be related to the nuclear fuel cycle, other than perhaps in the production of the radioisotopes using a nuclear reactor. Unfortunately, research and development in these applications areas, I am sure Senator Puplick would agree, would be restricted. The amendment would again, as we see it, also prevent any research and development into cyclotron techniques, although cyclotron-origin radioisotopes could probably still be produced and sold under the provisions of clause 5 (1) (c). Again, the Minister's powers under clause 5 (1) (a) (iii) to direct the Organisation to undertake research and development in any area would be lost to the extent that the governing clause is confined to fuel cycle matters. Only research and development related squarely and directly to the nuclear fuel cycle would be possible on that basis. The further concern we have is in regard to the second of the Opposition's amendments, with its specific reference to commercial application and utilisation. While it is, of course, very much part of our own thinking that the efforts of ANSTO be focused, as far as humanly possible, on commercial applications, we would not want the Act to be interpreted, so as to impose any restriction on non-commercial research and development by the Organisation. We are concerned that that would be the interpretation, it always having to be assumed that the Act would be likely to be challenged, I suppose, by those with an interest in ensuring that the Organisation confined itself to its statutory charter. Bearing in mind that possibility of litigation, it needs to be quite clear that the scope of the Organisation is not so confined. An example of non-commercial research and development which would still, we believe, be properly undertaken in the best interests of the Australian community, would be that which, for example, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is currently doing as part of its investigation into the high rate of the rare cancer lymphoma among workers in the Huntley colliery on the New South Wales south coast. I suppose that some people might argue that such work ought to be paid for by the user, but this study is being funded by the Commonwealth on the basis that some of the techniques being used by the Commission are still very much in the development stage. So it is not applied research; it is far more theoretical, if you like, in character at this stage, although that might not be stating the distinction too precisely. But it is an example of clearly non-commercial research, in any event, of the kind that we would certainly want to continue. I can certainly give Senator Puplick the undertaking that I believe he seeks on the part of the Opposition that there is nothing in this language which is intended to be restrictive of the work of the Organisation. We, of course, have our own views as to certain aspects of the Organisation's potential research activity which we believe are not relevant to present Australian conditions and ought not to be pursued. We have our own views as to priorities. Some other government might have different research priorities for the Organisation. The Act is broad enough to enable those different priorities to be applied. I do not think anything is to be gained from Senator Puplick's and the Opposition's perspective by this amendment. Certainly, there is a danger of something being lost. On that basis I hope that the amendments will not be pursued. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.47) —The Opposition rejects the interpretation which the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has given to the amendments which we have moved. Nevertheless, we are very encouraged by the Minister's specific undertaking about the Government's attitude as far as the role of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation is concerned and his undertaking that the Government is not in any way seeking to limit the work which ANSTO can do or the research which ANSTO can undertake. Nevertheless, we are also sufficiently realistic, the Minister having indicated the Government's opposition and the Australian Democrats having indicated their opposition to the two amendments we have put forward, while we indicate our continued support for the amendments, not to seek to take up the time of the Committee by requesting a division. Amendments negatived. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.48) —I move: (1) Page 4, after sub-clause 5 (2), insert the following sub-clauses: ``(2A) The Organisation shall not undertake research or development into any aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle, except radioactive waste management and matters of safety and safeguards. ``(2B) The Organisation shall not undertake research or development into any process involving the use or production of plutonium or uranium containing in excess of 20% of the isotopes uranium 233 and uranium 235, except for the purpose of radioisotope production or purposes related to health, scientific instrumentation, safety and safeguards. ``(2C) The Organisation shall undertake research into the substitution of radioisotopes produced by a cyclotron for radioisotopes produced by a nuclear reactor, for the purpose of minimising and removing dependence on the use of nuclear reactors.''. This amendment would explicitly hold the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation to the commitment made in the second reading speech of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans)-and, indeed, in his media releases-that nuclear fuel cycle research by ANSTO will be precluded. While we believe in the honourable senator's pronouncements-we believe in his honesty and sincerity-we feel that he perhaps will not occupy this position forever. He may go on to bigger and better things. So we would like to enshrine the commitment in legislation. The only exceptions relate to the minimisation of the adverse consequences of the nuclear fuel cycle-safety and safeguards-and to dealing with the urgent, and perhaps insoluble, problem of waste management. It may well be that we will never work out a safe system of disposing of nuclear wastes. The Organisation's work in radioactive waste management should focus on areas of immediate domestic concern. This constitutes the decommissioning, dismantling and disposing of the Lucas Heights reactor and the environmental, health and financial aspects of that operation. This is an old reactor, as we have heard over and over in this place. It was one of the first reactors. It was designed and built some 30 years ago by people who were enthusiastically behind the tests at Maralinga and other atomic testing at that time. It is an old reactor and should be dismantled. It is not only old but is in a densely populated area. It is imperative that the reactor be closed down and the people in the surrounding community would applaud that action. The maximum life of the reactor is 30 years, which is only three years away, despite the fuzziness of existing projections of life. Updated research on the risks and consequences of an uncontained meltdown at Lucas Heights should be examined, given two factors. The first is the presence of graphite leading to the risk of a Chernobyl-type disaster, and we have covered that matter in this chamber. The Lucas Heights reactor does contain graphite, and at the time of the Chernobyl disaster there were statements by experts in the nuclear industry that any reactor containing graphite was subject to the type of fire that occurred in the Chernobyl reactor. There is also the presence of highly enriched weapons grade uranium which could lead to the possibility of a fuel explosion. There should be research into high level waste disposal in Australia. To quote Sweden's Energy Minister, Mrs Brigitte Dahl: It remains the inescapable duty of every nation utilising nuclear energy to take full responsibility for all areas of radioactive waste management. We are furnishing the fuel in the form of uranium and we have the responsibility to determine how we can safely dispose of that fuel when it has gone through its nuclear cycle. We have no right to foist our nuclear wastes on to the citizens of another country, and by passing the uranium back to the United States there is no guarantee the Government can give that we will not assist the United States nuclear weapons program. Our uranium and plutonium may be used to meet a previous non-military commitment, while other material previously earmarked for that civilian job may be put to military use instead. There is no way that we can stop this substitution. They can account for it; we can account for it. They can say that our particular uranium is not being used for military purposes, but in fact it adds to the total pool of fissionable material and as such it means that more material is available for military uses. By contributing to the total United States stockpile of weapons grade fuel, the distinction between our stuff and someone else's is entirely artificial. The Minister has said that final disposal in Australia would be `prohibitively expensive'. He did not state that the cost would be political as well as financial. If it turns out that we cannot meet that cost, then this is a further reason to close down Lucas Heights immediately. On the subject of uranium mill wastes disposal, our existing mines have generated well over one million tonnes of mill wastes. These tailings contain thorium-230, which has a half life of 80,000 years. It decays to produce radium-226 and radon-222, a gas which can produce cancer by ingestion and inhalation respectively. How, for the coming hundreds of thousands of years, will these wastes be isolated from the ground water and the air we breathe? With all the good will in the world, this Government cannot promise that this waste will not enter our environment. How will we prevent the incorporation of the mill tailings into building materials? By 1983 this had happened in 800 individual structures in the United States-schools, churches and others-with an estimated clean-up cost of $25m. In fact, it happens here. We cannot guarantee this. While ANSTO has been precluded from uranium mining research in general, this is an area of radioactive waste management which it should be required to tackle forthwith. The amendment set out in proposed sub-clause 2B limits the use or production of fissile material which could be used for bomb production-plutonium or uranium enriched to greater than 20 per cent U235. The allowed uses are radio- isotope production, or for purposes related to health, scientific instrumentation, safety and safeguards. Plutonium which is not pure PU-239-that is, contains significant proportions of PU240 and 241-can still be used to make bombs, albeit less reliable ones. For many in this world the mere possession of a bomb, whether reliable or not, would be a great incentive to build one. While uranium enriched to 20 per cent U233 and U235 is not weapons grade, it is relatively easy to enrich to weapons grade. International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards treat plutonium and uranium enriched to greater than 20 per cent U233 and U235 as special cases. In limiting the quantities of these materials used in Australia, the amendment reduces the risk that some could be stolen with the aim of producing a terrorist bomb, an ever present danger in our world and one that every senator in this chamber would find abhorrent. In regard to sub-clause (2C), the 1986-87 Budget includes $200,000 for preliminary work towards the establishment of a national medical cyclotron facility at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney. These investigations should include consideration of phasing out our dependence on reactor-based isotopes, through the substitution of cyclotron-based isotopes. Reactors produce beta-emitting radioisotopes, while cyclotrons produce positron-emitting radioisotopes. The two types have functions which are complementary, at least in part. However, cyclotrons can produce beta-emitting radioisotopes, with the cyclotron being used as a source of neutrons. This is described in IAEA Technical Report Series No. 128, entitled `Radioisotope Production and Quality Control', issued in 1971. Only small quantities of beta-emitting radioisotopes may be produced in this way, so a reduction in the use of radioisotopes in general would be required. This could have a beneficial outcome, if funds were diverted to preventative medicine, rather than being used for high-tech cures with a low chance of success. These amendments are proposed in a positive way to help Australia get on with the job of reducing the possibility of nuclear disaster around the world. We recommend them to the Senate. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(5.56) —I rise to support Senator Sanders's amendments to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill because they raise a number of important issues which are of great concern to me regarding this piece of legislation. The establishment of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation to replace the Australian Atomic Energy Commission raises far more questions than it answers. Central to this debate must be ANSTO's future role and purpose in the 1980s and beyond. I would like to put forward some suggestions as to its future direction while responding to proposals already made by the Government and in terms of the amendments proposed by Senator Sanders. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Evans) stated that: The Australian Atomic Energy Commission's research program has been without firm legislative directions for the future. Yet this could equally apply to ANSTO. This legislation says very little about why we need a new organisation. Indeed, there is a fuzzy blandness about the proposed legislation. It seems as though we are setting up another quango which will be left to do pretty much as it pleases. However, the people have a right to know what is going on within the Organisation. For instance, we have the right to information regarding the Organisation's role in uranium enrichment research based on centrifuge technology. The Minister said in his second reading speech that such research was `soon' to be terminated. My question is more fundamental: When is this very secretive research going to be abandoned, and what is the exact nature of the phase down program which the AAEC and the Australian Safeguards Office have agreed to undertake on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Commission? This example of uranium enrichment research based on centrifuge technology is an excellent example of the grand dreams and designs for nuclear technology and research entrenched in the old atomic energy ethos of the 1950s and 1960s. Will ANSTO continue in the same vein? Will it continue to promote other nuclear research dreams? This legislation is an opportunity to revitalise an organisation which has become stuck in its old ways. Yet will this happen if ANSTO is still to be largely comprised of a work force still pining to do the same old research. The Government has given some new sense of direction in indicating that ANSTO would increase its commercial orientation by applying nuclear technology to areas such as medicine, science, industry and agriculture. But what specific applications are envisaged, and are such applications necessary? Surely many of these functions could be carried out without using nuclear technology. The economics of the proposals, particularly the enrichment program, should be subject to serious scrutiny. Nuclear technology is extremely wasteful of finite resources. For example, continuing production of medical radioisotopes in the nuclear medicine field is seen as one of ANSTO's main commercial activities, even though these isotopes have been produced at a loss under the management of the AAEC. But the really important question is: Cannot these medical isotopes be produced without using a nuclear reactor with all its inherent nuclear waste and safety problems? We know that a decision has been made to purchase a cyclotron for a Sydney hospital, but there are still medical radioisotopes which only a nuclear reactor can produce. This raises a serious dilemma for the Government. With each passing month, the Lucas Heights reactor becomes increasingly unsafe. The 27-year-old reactor is fast reaching the end of its so-called safe life. For the production of these reactor specialised isotopes the Government faces only two unsatisfactory options: Either to build a new reactor, or to import the necessary radioisotopes. Neither is a satisfactory solution. The Government will not be able to site a new reactor anywhere in the Sydney area without causing a community outcry. My understanding of the medical use of these radioisotopes is that they cannot be produced too far from the major client hospitals. The second major option is no answer as it relies on importing radioisotopes from other nations' unsafe, immoral nuclear industries. Both options lack credibility, in my opinion, leaving the only hope out of this dilemma being increased funding and research into alternatives to the current medical treatment or, better still, more research into ways in which these illnesses can be prevented. The question of nuclear safety is absolutely central to any discussion of ANSTO's future role. There is no doubt that the HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights is becoming too old and too unsafe. With great concern I noted that the Federal Government had allocated $3.25m for what could only be a patch up job. There is only one way to deal with an old reactor and that is to shut it down. The Lucas Heights reactor, particularly in this precarious condition, is a danger to the large suburban population which has mushroomed around it in the past 27 years. The Sydney metropolitan area is no place for a nuclear reactor. All activities involving the use of a nuclear reactor also involve the production of radioactive wastes. When the Government talks blithely of extending ANSTO's commercial nuclear activities it should know that this will mean a significant increase in the nuclear waste problem. This begs the question: Are these commercial nuclear activities, such as the irradiation of food stuffs, really necessary? Are we once again hopping on to the technological bandwagon instead of taking notice of recent disasters such as the Chernobyl accident? Have not such disasters warned against putting too much faith in high technology? The problem of nuclear waste disposal is immense. The public needs to know to what extent ANSTO will be involved in this area, particularly in the development of Synroc. I noted with some alarm the recent report that the inventor of synroc, Professor Ringwood, is now involved in a process whereby nuclear waste, including plutonium, could be stored in deep drilled holes in the Australian outback. Evidently, these holes may be up to four kilometres deep. Professor Ringwood has also talked of accepting and reprocessing foreign nuclear warheads and developing a reprocessing industry in Australia. In other words, if there are dollars in it, this will be done. The Professor has proposed that the final resting place of much of Australia's uranium production, and that of other nations, could be in a geologically inert and seismologically stable area of uninhabited Australia. Is he proposing that this work, which is currently being researched at the Australian National University, be transferred to ANSTO if and when the project comes to commercial development? I remind honourable senators that today there are more than 60,000 tonnes of nuclear waste material in the world. Australia has more than its fair share with its finished, obsolete uranium mines; the British nuclear testing sites on the Monte Bello Islands and at Maralinga; and smaller commercial dumps at Lucas Heights and in other States. Will ANSTO be given the job of supervising all these clean ups? Already spent fuel rods from ANSTO present an embarrassment to the Government which knows that it cannot store them indefinitely and is considering shipping some of the spent fuel rods to the United States where they could very easily end up in the nuclear weapons program. In spite of my belief that the only lasting solution to the nuclear waste problem is not to produce the waste, I acknowledge the usefulness of some research being directed towards trying to solve the waste disposal problems that already exist. But I am reluctant to accept the idea of burying vast amounts of waste for tens of thousands of years in four kilometre holes deep in the Australian outback. I turn to the debate on the safety procedures through self regulation under the AAEC. The proposal to establish a nuclear safety bureau is totally inadequate. Senator Gareth Evans —That is not the amendment now before us. Senator VALLENTINE —No, it is not, but it certainly needs to be discussed because this body-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Vallentine, this may need to be discussed but now is not the moment to do so. You may speak again when that matter comes up, if you wish. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.05) —Even before that last foray, the contributions of Senator Sanders and Senator Vallentine reminded me of nothing so much as the man who jumped upon his horse and galloped off madly in all directions. A great flurry of propositions have been advanced. Most, I fear, are more than a little misconceived. I will do my best to answer them. Perhaps it is convenient to do so by reference to the three basic paragraphs of the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats. The first paragraph would seek to prohibit the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation undertaking: . . . research or development into any aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle, except radioactive waste management and matters of safety and safeguards. Concerning that, I certainly do not resile from anything I said in the second reading speech about the desirability of this Organisation's research moving away, generally speaking, from nuclear fuel cycle research, consistent with this Government's policy that Australia not become involved in any stages of the nuclear fuel cycle other than the mining and milling of uranium and the disposal of waste. The difficulty is that the introduction of an amendment in the robust terms proposed by Senator Sanders, for reasons I will explain, undoubtedly would be an unwarranted limitation on ANSTO's research capacity and would certainly result, I think, in unforseen restrictions as well as in those that the Democrats and Senator Vallentine would like to see on ANSTO's research programs. Although the exceptions referred to in the proposed amendment would preserve some ANSTO programs-synroc and so on-the wording is so wide as to preclude many other areas. Let me give some examples. The first concerns advice to the Government. Governments need advice, as Senator Sanders would be quick to acknowledge. The Government will rely on ANSTO to provide advice on a wide range of nuclear issues, including matters relating to the nuclear fuel cycle-for example in relation to the assessment of such issues in other countries. As was noted in chapter 3 of the Collins Review of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which I tabled in the Senate on 11 November, ANSTO will be able to provide expert scientific and technical advice in these areas very effectively only if it maintains an adequate number of scientists, engineers and technologists who are working in appropriate fields. While these people might not perform research and development directly on the fuel cycle they will certainly need to keep themselves up to date on developments in these areas. The Democrats' proposed amendment is so wide as to proscribe even literature research. Again, research in support of the operations of ANSTO's reactors-for example, in such areas as the possible conversion to lower enriched fuel and enhancement of the research capabilities of those reactors-would, as we see it, be precluded by this kind of Democrats' language; as would also certain fundamental nuclear physics research programs, including the area of nuclear fusion to the extent that that is wanted to be pursued by the Organisation. Again, research and support of uranium mining and milling activities clearly would be prescribed by the Democrats' language, in this instance no doubt deliberately rather than inadvertently. We see that as an unacceptable limitation. We further argue that the Democrats' proposal could lead to inefficient resource allocation. To the extent that research appropriate to ANSTO is proscribed by legislation, the consequence may simply be that the research would be undertaken by other organisations such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation on which no such statutory restrictions apply. The Government believes that any concerns about the extent of possible ANSTO involvement in fuel cycle research are best met not through legislative prohibitions of uncertain consequence or ambit but through the requirements specified in the legislation for ANSTO to take account of government science and energy policy, complemented as appropriate by ministerial power of direction. As to the points made in the second paragraph of the Democrats' amendment-proposed new sub-clause (2B)-I have to say, in a spirit of as much charity as I can muster, that the Democrats' obsession with restricting research and development work involving plutonium reminds me of nothing so much as the medieval passion about witchcraft. Senator Sanders —To which it is closely related. Senator Haines —An extremely astute observation, very astute. Senator GARETH EVANS —Indeed, it should be noted and I am glad that the honourable senator acknowledged it. It is a rather more astute observation than that of the honourable senators about me, which is recorded in the newspapers this morning, but I do not mind. It should be noted that plutonium has a range of uses outside the nuclear area and, indeed, would be used by entities other than the present commission of ANSTO. Such uses for plutonium include a heat source for fuel cells, for example, in heart pacemakers; and in plutonium beryllium neutron sources, for example, in instruments such as neutron moisture meters. Surely Senator Sanders would not want to proscribe the existence of neutron moisture meters, would he? That is just inconceivable. It would be incongruous to exclude ANSTO from any work involving plutonium when plutonium is in use elsewhere in Australia. In addition to these sorts of uses the Commission is involved in the following areas involving the use of plutonium and no doubt could be expected to remain so in the future: In safeguards research, for example, the development of instrumentation to measure the plutonium content in samples from reprocessing plants; in physics experiments studying the physics of the fission process; and in health physics work, including the calibration of whole body monitoring equipment and other instruments. While some of these specific areas might be exempted from the ban on research and development involving plutonium in the way in which this has been framed in the amendment by the Australia Democrats, certainly the prohibition could prohibit unforeseen future activities in areas in which it might be very sensible and desirable for ANSTO to be involved. I move to the concern about enrichment activities. Let me say at the outset in response to Senator Vallentine that the program on uranium enrichment concluded some 12 months ago. Work has been continued in some respects to provide research in support of IAEA safeguards but this work itself is now complete and has been published at the IAEA meeting in Vienna. No further uranium enrichment will occur at Lucas Heights. To the extent that highly enriched uranium is being used for certain purposes-and I will come to that in a moment-it is not being produced at Lucas Heights; it is being bought in. The 20 per cent level of uranium enrichment is generally accepted as the level below which use of the material for nuclear weapons production is not feasible. If it is the intention of the Democrats in their amendment to prevent research and development which might have implications for nuclear weapons, and that seems to be the point in using this particular threshold, then the proposed amendment would be quite unnecessary because there is already a quite specific provision elsewhere in the ANSTO Bill to prohibit such work. The proposed restriction on research and development involving uranium enriched to more than 20 per cent of U233 or U235 would have implications in relation to the operation of the HIFAR and MOATA nuclear reactors using fuel enriched above this level as is presently the case. Let me indicate some of the areas of work that would thus be inhibited or precluded by this ban on the use of highly enriched uranium. HIFAR activities would be constrained as far as neutron beam research, the irradiation of silicon for semiconductor uses and neutron activation analysis are concerned. Such activation is used for the analysis of trace materials, including police forensic work. Let me make a reference to the safety of that particular reactor since that preoccupied both Senator Sanders and Senator Vallentine in their contributions. I do not think it is necessary for me to track back over the very detailed answer I gave in the Senate in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster on 30 April 1986 at page 2081 of Hansard. In that answer I explained all the-- Senator Haines —I think I preferred you when you were being rude to when you are being patronising. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry, Senator, if you detect such a note in my voice. It is a function of your own churlish world view which is perfectly understandable in the light of the dramas with which you have had to contend in your own rag-tag and bobtail organisation over the last few months and it does not bear any relationship to my highly constructive and thoughtful attempt to contribute to this debate. Having said all that, let me refer honourable senators again to the fact that I made a detailed answer on this matter in the Senate on that date and I hope that that answer will be referred to again. We see no problems whatsoever about HIFAR continuing a perfectly safe operation well into the 1990s. Other reactors of the same class and vintage exist and operate perfectly satisfactorily overseas with no closure plans at all at this stage. I do not believe that repetition of these sorts of concerns serves any purpose other than to irresponsibly generate alarm which is quite unjustified by the factual situation. Having said that by way of parenthesis, let me return to the MOATA, the little reactor. Perhaps I should say the even littler reactor rather than the little one because they are both very small research reactors by any prevailing international standards. The smaller MOATA reactor would be inhibited from contributing to all sorts of useful research programs if 20 per cent plus enriched uranium were to be prohibited. I instance here neutron radiography, such as the examination of jet engine components; various environmental measurements, which should be dear and close to the hearts of Senator Sanders and other Democrats; uranium ore analyses which, I acknowledge, will be less dear to their hearts but will nonetheless be affected by this proposed ban; and, again, various scientific investigations undertaken by researchers under the auspices of the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering or AINSE as it is called. The restrictions would also affect various physics experiments into the fundamental properties of U233 and U235 being undertaken by the AAEC or ANSTO as it will shortly become. Finally, let me say something about the third sub-paragraph of the Democrats' amendment-the stuff about the cyclotron which I was recently delighted to announce was being funded by the Government and proceeding at the Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney. To limit the organisation's research in the way that it is proposed by sub-clause 5 (2C) would be far too specific for inclusion as a function of ANSTO. More than anything else it seems simply a description of a particular research project. The AAEC already has an extensive involvement in research in cyclotron generated radioisotopes and it is clear that the range of radioisotopes which can be produced by cyclotron would complement but could not entirely replace those produced in a nuclear reactor. Here I wish directly to negate the points that were made by Senator Vallentine, who suggested that a cyclotron could do what- ever we needed it to do and that we did not need to have a reactor generating isotopes. She suggested that cyclotron could do anything that we might reasonably want medical science to do. Senator Vallentine —I did not say that. Senator GARETH EVANS —Well, it certainly sounded as if you were saying that. I point out for a start that there is no substitute for all applications of the radioisotope most widely used in Australia, and that is technetium-99m, the production of which is based on the HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights. Technetium-99m cannot be produced directly in a cyclotron with the purity required for medical use. Whilst molybdenum-99, the source material of technetium generators, could be produced using cyclotrons, it is estimated that it would take more than 20 cyclotrons operating continuously to satisfy the current Australian demand. I cannot be much more explicit or much more firm in my response on that issue than I have just been. I hope that those statistics will be accepted for the forceful rebuttal that they are of the nonsense that is regrettably so often talked by uranium opponents on those aspects. For all those reasons, which I hope will be accepted as an attempt to respond fairly carefully and fully to the points that have been raised by the Democrats, I believe that the amendments should be rejected. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.19) —The Opposition does not support any of the Australian Democrat amendments to this particular clause of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill, their aim being primarily to limit the role and the future development of ANSTO. A number of comments were made by both Senator Sanders and Senator Vallentine which need to be addressed directly. The first was Senator Sanders's claim that there are no peaceful uses for nuclear energy. That is a view which the Opposition entirely rejects. We believe there are peaceful uses of nuclear energy, both in terms of reactors being used for the provision of energy-not in Australia but, nevertheless, the statement made by Senator Sanders was in a global sense-and certainly in terms of the development of radioactive isotopes for medical purposes. The claim that there are no peaceful uses of nuclear energy would be entirely rejected. Secondly, the claim by Senator Vallentine that the whole nuclear fuel cycle and the whole nuclear industry are both unsafe and immoral is demonstrably false. The nuclear fuel cycle and the use of nuclear energy can be rendered safe, and in Australia, in my view, have operated safely. The determination of immorality is highly subjective and is certainly one that I do not share, particularly in terms of the work which has already been undertaken-as I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate on this piece of legislation-not only in the medical field but also in the use of radioactive isotopes for tracing the movements of water and silt, which has allowed the effective management of some of our coastal and port resources, and in a number of other areas which I do not need to go into at this stage. Senator Sanders, a senator from Tasmania, has been very active in making himself an expert on what the people in the Sutherland Shire in New South Wales think or do not think about the Lucas Heights reactor. As a person who has visited the reactor in that area on a number of occasions, who spends a great deal of time in that area and who has consistently-- Senator Haines —And is now glowing in the dark. Senator PUPLICK —It is not so much a matter of glowing in the dark; the real problem that the Australian Democrats have is that intellectually they are unable to glow under any circumstances. The electorate of Cook in New South Wales has consistently returned Liberal members to the House of Representatives. Senator Sanders claims that the people of Sutherland Shire are opposed to the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. Nevertheless, when this matter has been an issue-in particular, in campaigns for local government in the Sutherland Shire-those representatives of the Liberal Party who have consistently supported the maintenance of the reactor at Lucas Heights have always been returned by the electors of Sutherland Shire. Senator Haines —Which just goes to show what having a nuclear reactor in the electorate does to them. Senator PUPLICK —What one hears repeatedly from Senator Sanders, and what one is now hearing from his bleating leader, is the continuation of attacks which are designed, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, to frighten and mislead people and to try to bring about a situation in which, on the basis of no good scientific evidence whatsoever, we have put to us the decommissioning of the HIFAR and MOATA reactors at Lucas Heights, despite the fact that the unsafest thing that can be done, with the current state of technology, is the process of decommissioning these reactors. Nothing could be more unsafe than the proposal which Senator Sanders has advanced. As for the lunatic comments about terrorist weapons related specifically to the situation at Lucas Heights, I believe that they are an indication, once again, of just how far away from the truth Senator Sanders is prepared to stray in order to frighten people in relation to this matter. I said that I wanted to address a number of areas in which I hope ANSTO will undertake some further research. I propose in a minute to come to the matter of food irradiation, which I know is close to the heart of Senator Macklin, and of the development of the synroc process. Before I do, however, I want to respond to one of the comments made by Senator Vallentine in terms of seeking alternatives in the production of radioactive isotopes for medical purposes. She said that there ought to be a way of producing them without the necessity for any sort of reactor-the truth is that neither the technetium-99m nor the molybdenum-99, to which the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has been referring, can be produced in that fashion-or that they should be imported, which she has rejected as a reasonable course of action. Like the alchemists of old, she seems to think there is the possibility of creating these radioactive isotopes out of nothing and out of a process which does not involve the use of radioactivity and the nuclear fuel cycle. She says that the Government must put a large amount of money into the funding of alternative means of preventing the diseases which are being treated or into finding alternative methods of treatment. While that might be an extremely admirable, long term objective, it fails to answer the questions of how many people will suffer and how people will die while we close down the reactor and hope that the results of this long term medical research will eventually become available. I think the case is fully made out in the Slatyer report, entitled `Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: A report to the Prime Minister', and the report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Energy Commission, the Collins report, in terms of the importance of this development in Australia. As I said, I want to mention the development of further research into the synroc process and food irradiation. I take the synroc project first. In a report entitled `SYNROC: The Australian Method for Immobilizing High Level Nuclear Waste', which was produced by the information office of the Atomic Energy Commission research establishment, one reads the following: SYNROC has not yet been fabricated with a full loading of radioactive high level waste. But scientists in other countries- note that, Mr Chairman- have prepared SYNROC (and SYNROC minerals) containing individual high level waste radionuclides, such as caesium, ruthenium, plutonium and other actinides. The ANU had prepared SYNROC containing radioactive uranium and technetium, and tested its properties. The AAEC will be preparing radioactive SYNROC using actinide elements and, separately, fission products which are a by-product from medical isotope production in the HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights. Collaborative research and development has been arranged between Australia and the United Kingdom, where the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority will prepare and test small samples of SYNROC fully loaded with highly active wastes from the commercial power reactor. Collaboration is also being arranged between Australia and Japan. It seems to me absolutely appalling that the pioneering research work has been done in Australia and the development is fundamentally Australian, yet we have to rely upon collaborative projects with Japan or upon fabrication done by the United Kingdom because we are not prepared to pursue this more actively in Australia. Indeed, if Senator Sanders were to have his way, it would be totally impossible to do so because we would not have the facility of the HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights available to us. There is no way in the world in which everybody will close down their nuclear reactors overnight or in which the problem of radioactive waste disposal will be solved overnight. The idea that we should be prepared to limit, as the Democrats' amendment would, the research work that could be undertaken in Australia towards the further refinement of the synroc process which may provide the long term answer for the disposal of nuclear waste seems to me to be not only wrong but also, in terms of the Democrats' amendments, self-defeating. In terms of the general limitation of work which would potentially be undertaken, which limitation would result from the passage of the Democrats' amendment, on behalf of the Opposition I express our complete hostility towards any legislative attempt to prevent valuable research work being done in Australia, whether it be in the nuclear fuel cycle, in the nuclear industry in general or any legitimate form of medical and scientific research. The result which would inevitably follow of a loss to Australia of talented people is something which we can ill afford at this stage. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator PUPLICK —Before the suspension of the sitting I was indicating that the other matter I wish to address in terms of the research which I believe that the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation ought to be undertaking insofar as its future program is concerned is the question of food irradiation. I spoke at some length during the second reading stage of this legislation and I have no intention of traversing all of that ground again. Senator Gareth Evans —Hooray. Senator PUPLICK —The honourable senator should be careful. He is doing quite well at the moment in terms of the Opposition's approach but he is in imminent danger of blowing it. However, I simply want to update what I said by indicating that there have now been a number of quite clear expressions of interest from the commercial sector in Australia for the development of food irradiation projects and activities. For instance, there was a report quite recently that the Queensland Fish Management Authority had sought Federal Government approval to apply the technique of food irradiation to a whole range of fish and crustacea marketed for both local consumption and for export. It has been claimed that there are a number of areas in which there is some doubt, confusion or uncertainty about the validity of tests so far done and the standards and procedures laid down for the irradiation of food. When I spoke during the second reading debate I drew attention to the fact that a United Nations committee had reported that `no toxicological hazard is caused by irradiating any food up to a dose of 10 kilograys'. I drew attention to the fact that local authorities in some 22 countries-including Canada, France, the Netherlands, Hungary and the Soviet Union-had permitted the development of food irradiation techniques and that United Nations agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the International Atomic Energy Authority and the World Health Organisation had also supported this technique. I drew attention to the fact that Pamela Wells, a very distinguished scientist employed by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, who will presumably continue in that position with ANSTO, had, along with other people, done a great deal of work on this matter. I drew attention to the fact that companies such as Steritech, operating in New South Wales and, indeed, elsewhere throughout Australia, already had a very distinguished record of using irradiation techniques not so much for food products as for other products. I pointed out that to the best of my knowledge the investigations so far undertaken by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission had in fact been very positive in terms of the gamma ray treatment of foodstuffs. It may well be that people believe that a great deal more research work has to be done. If there is, it seems to me that a body like ANSTO is the appropriate body to undertake those sorts of scientific investigations and those sorts of inquiries. However, on the basis of the Australian Democrat amendment, it would be prohibited from so doing. I conclude my remarks by saying that the Opposition will not support the amendments moved by the Australian Democrats. The Opposition believes that the claims which have been made by Senator Sanders in relation to the decommissioning of Lucas Heights are quite unjustified. It believes that the comments which have been made by Senator Vallentine about the lack of safety and morality in the Australian nuclear industry again are thoroughly unjustified. The comments which the Minister for Resources and Energy made in relation to these amendments are, on this occasion, supported by the Opposition. It believes that the general thrust of the Democrats' amendment to seek a limit, curtail and prevent ANSTO from undertaking valuable and important research work in the national interest should not be supported. We will therefore vote against the Democrats' amendments. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.05) —Amendments moved by my colleague Senator Sanders to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1985 include a number of items, only one of which I wish to refer to, that is, the issue of food irradiation. Senator Puplick identified me in his speech as a person who undoubtedly would want to say something on this issue and he is certainly correct. I think that honourable senators are well aware of my opposition to the progression of any industry based on food irradiation in Australia, particularly the widespread irradiation of foods with the intention of extending their shelf life, particularly in the areas of fresh fruit and vegetables or meats, or the Queensland proposal in terms of fish and crustaceans. I am interested in the response of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) as to the role that the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation would have in regard to this matter. I refer particularly to our amendment which would in fact seek to prohibit ANSTO's involvement in this exercise. I refer to the Atomic Energy Agency's already heavy involvement, particularly in terms of quite considerable funds being expended overseas, and the acquiescence of this Government in paying for a person to go overseas to draw up a list of proposals of how it could induce this country to accept food irradiation. In fact, we have already paid out of Consolidated Revenue moneys for a propaganda program to downcry and to make people feel safe with an operation which undoubtedly will be the first exercise in major experimentation on human beings without their consent and doubtless with the Commonwealth Government's total acquiescence. I am interested as to whether or not ANSTO-- Senator Peter Baume —Come on, now. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Baume, by way of interjection, finds this incredible. China is in fact engaging in an experiment at this very moment with a test group of 100,000 people to find out whether or not food irradiation is good or bad for us. We intend to introduce it in this country without any such operations. Senator Puplick says there is some doubt with regard to the experiments that have been done. There certainly is. In fact, three principals of the company that did the research for the United States Army are now in gaol for fraudulently engaging in scientific experiments and for providing cooked books to the Government. In fact, the United States Army has now discontinued the use of irradiated food precisely because of the enormous doubts which have been cast over that experimentation. We propose to undertake such an activity in this country. I believe that it is immoral to use a group of people as guinea pigs as has happened in the China experimentation. Yet we are going to do it here without any knowledge and understanding of what is going on. I want to know what role ANSTO will have in this particular type of exercise. What is more, I would like to know whether, if in fact it does go ahead, it is necessary for ANSTO to give any agreement or is it possible for the exercise to go ahead without ANSTO giving any agreement whatsoever. I raise a question in relation to probably the most common method which I understand is being investigated in Queensland-the use of cobalt 60. Although caesium 137 could be used, electricity certainly could not be used because it is an untried theoretical possibility. Let us say that cobalt 60 is used and that presumably it is imported from Canada because the Canadian atomic company concerned has certainly the lieu on the major world export in this area. But from wherever it is imported, would it be necessary for ANSTO under its reconstruction to give any agreement whatsoever? By what method would the importation to Australia of cobalt 60 for a specific purpose be allowed? I raise the suggestion that has been made in the debate so far, particularly with regard to evidence given to the Australian Consumers Association's inquiry which this Government has funded to the tune of $100,000. Evidence given to that inquiry suggested that the Commonwealth Government would have no such controls and that cobalt 60 could be diverted from other sources in Australia, presumably in terms of research being undertaken either by the current Atomic Energy Commission or by ANSTO in its new creation, to be used in Queensland for such activity. It seems to me that such an exercise and such a suggestion are not correct. I would like the Minister's comments with regard to the suggestion made in evidence given before the Committee. I would also be interested in the Minister's response to the fact that there is now a House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation irradiation inquiry. If ANSTO has powers with regard to importation of cobalt and its ability to prevent food irradiation in Australia, under whatever guise and under whatever power, will this Government use those powers to prevent any further development in the area of food irradiation until such time as the House of Representatives Committee has reported and until such time as this Government has had a chance to review thoroughly the report of the House of Representatives Committee? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.12) —I do not want to go into a long argument about food irradiation as such because it is a subject of controversy, as Senator Macklin has said. Whether it deserves to be is another question. But that is something on which I will not pre-empt the judgment of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation which is presently looking at this matter and hoping to report before the Budget session, nor will I pre-empt the judgment of the Australian Consumers Association which, as we know, has been contracted by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to investigate food irradiation and which is expected to present its report by mid to late April. What I can do is indicate what the situation is on the basis of the rather limited briefing material presently available to me. My main bulk of briefing material is presently buried away in a mass of cardboard boxes currently being shifted from upstairs to downstairs and I am feeling a little naked as a result. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission involvement in research on food irradiation goes back a quite considerable period and has been the subject of full public reporting year after year in the annual reports of the Atomic Energy Commission. It is involved, both directly and through government sponsorship of the International Atomic Energy Agency's project in the region of food irradiation, in assisting developing countries in the region to transfer food irradiation technology to local industries for commercial use in aiding preservation, storage and trading in food. That is all in countries in respect of which there is an acceptance and utilisation of the technology and we have been assisting in that respect. What has to be acknowledged and not overlooked in any reference to this matter is that there has been significant international research on the subject for a long time and the technique is at the stage where it is thought generally to be appropriate for implementation on an industrial scale. The Codex Alimentarius Commission, which, as Senator Macklin will undoubtedly know, is an international agency set up to implement food standards developed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Health Organisation, has adopted a general standard for irradiated food. As I understand it, that standard is in general use in the countries in the region where this technology is now being applied. The Food and Drug Administration of the United States Department of Health and Human Services-not an organisation which is known to be backward in the rigor of the standards it applies-has amended its regulations to permit low level irradiation for certain foods and high level irradiation of spices and herbs. Between 1958 and 1981, 24 countries approved the irradiation treatment of some 40 different foods. For example, Canada and the United States of America both permit the irradiation of wheat and that is as reported by the United States Institute of Food Technologists. The number of countries has since increased to 29 as of last year. Senator Haines —That is not what he asked. Senator Macklin —Is ANSTO's involvement necessary? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not able to go into any more details about the particular projects in China or anywhere else that have been talked about. Senator Macklin —Is ANSTO's involvement necessary for the importation and use of cobalt 60? Senator GARETH EVANS —ANSTO is the repository in this country of the greatest accumulated knowledge of nuclear science and technology expertise. It is an organisation which has been involved in this technology and in this pure science for a long time now and that suggestion is nonsensical, given the essentially emotional rather than reasoned character of the debate on this subject at this stage. The cryptonite lobby is much in evidence in any uranium debate but I have never seen it more in evidence than in the context of food irradiation. There may be issues deserving the justification of further research and report. The Government accepts that and it has set in train the particular investigations that I have referred to. The point that I make about the width and the extent of the use of this technology and its acceptance by reputable international standard-setting organisations is simply to put this debate into context and not allow the issues and the emotional responses already generated to be left hanging in the air. Obviously there is much more that can and needs to be said in a debate in the Parliament describing the technology. I have a page or two of briefing notes and I can chatter away, if honourable senators want to know, about caesium 137 and cobalt 60. But I do not propose to do that because it is a debate that is more appropriately left for another time. Certainly the Atomic Energy Commission has been involved in this, both in its internal projects and in being the government arm assisting in the sponsorship and implementation of these international programs. There is no intention of withdrawing from the involvement in those programs at this stage. It is completely consistent with the work that has been done to date and it is completely consistent with all known and presently applicable international standards. The onus of proof at the moment in terms of the nature, degree, extent and character of this involvement, is very much on those who would want to argue against it rather than vesting in the agency which, as I have said, is continuing a course of action that has been going on for many years. Beyond that I am afraid that I am just not in a position, for the reasons I have already explained, to contribute anything further to this debate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.18) —I apologise to the Minister for getting emotional about the poisoning of people but I see it as an emotional issue. I was actually asking a question which was relevant to the Bill rather than a discussion of food irradiation as such until I was provoked by Senator Peter Baume's interjections. The question that I actually asked was about the involvement of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation in regard to the importation of cobalt 60 or caesium 137 if they happen to be the ones that we use. Is it necessary for ANSTO to be involved in any way in regard to this as the government arm, as the Minister has said? The information I am seeking is whether the Commonwealth Government has any powers to prevent the development of food irradiation in Australia until such time as the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation reports. That is the information that I am basically looking for. Is ANSTO the body that will provide the Government with that type of operation? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.19) —On that specific question about the importation of cobalt 60 and caesium 137-and the isotopes themselves-I am advised that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, ANSTO, is the Commonwealth agency which is responsible for the approval of the importation, based simply on the safety of the importation arrangements and in advising the Australian Customs Service on the application of its regulations affecting this material because, as I have said, it is the resident body of expertise on these matters. It is not a matter of the Organisation having the power to ban this material itself for the kinds of reasons that have been suggested by Senator Macklin. To do so would be quite at odds with its whole approach to this issue and its understanding of the safety issues involved with it. If the Government wanted to ban the importation of these isotopes pending the outcome of some inquiry, no doubt it could do so under the exercise of its general trade and commerce power by promulgating appropriate amendments to the Customs and importation regulations. The power is there; Customs operates it. Senator Macklin —It is Customs and not ANSTO. Senator GARETH EVANS —Customs is the organisation that is physically responsible for import regulations; ANSTO happens to be the body which, in effect, advises Customs on the way in which those regulations should be applied in this instance. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(8.20) —We have heard a number of objections to these amendments, but none of them were well-founded. We heard Senator Gareth Evans, who is a gung ho protector of the uranium miners, say that somehow the development of plutonium pacemakers would be affected. He is frantically trying to find some benign use for this very deadly technology. It puts me in mind of my misguided past when I was given the task by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to find some peaceful use for a microwave radiometer, which basically we were developing as a means of terminal guidance for nuclear missiles. For a year NASA paid me a large sum of money to develop such systems as a device in a satellite to detect snowpack thickness. This was supposed to be a peaceful use of our military hardware. A plutonium pacemaker is a similar example. If one wants to know snowpack thickness, one puts somebody on skis on the ground. It is the sort of think that happens all the time-the development of gee whiz science to do a very simple task which could otherwise be handled with common sense and perhaps even by employing somebody. Senator Puplick talked about the Sutherland Shire residents who, since they vote Liberal, are wholly in favour of having a nuclear reactor in their front or back yards. I have never yet seen a demonstration for nuclear power in the Sutherland Shire, but I have seen many demonstrations against it. I am sure the honourable senator will agree that, if the people were that happy about it, they would hang wreaths on the gates of Lucas Heights, and I have never seen such a thing. However, I have noted in the Press numbers of incidents of low level radiation spills into the Woronora River and the irradiation of the area-enough to make Sutherland Shire residents quite uneasy about Lucas Heights. The point was brought up about the development of isotopes and research into the substitution of radioisotopes by cyclotron. If Senator Puplick had taken the trouble to read the amendments instead of just fulminating against the Democrats' position, as he usually does, he would have found that it states: The Organisation shall undertake research into the substitution of radioisotopes produced by a cyclotron for radioisotopes produced by a nuclear reactor, for the purpose of minimising and removing dependence on the use of nuclear reactors. This research would lead to the minimising and removal of nuclear reactors. It does not say that it will immediately replace them, but it is a step in that direction. That is what the amendment states, and I think the honourable senator would support it if he understood it. Senator Puplick —No. Senator SANDERS —Obviously the honourable senator does not understand it. He also said that somehow this measure would affect the development of synroc-a very apt name for something to do with nuclear energy. The Australian Democrats' amendment (2A) states: The Organisation shall not undertake research or development into any aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle, except radioactive waste management . . . Again the honourable senator did not read the amendment. If he had read it, he would have seen that synroc and all of its cognates are specifically exempted. Therefore, research into synroc would not be affected. There was a long discussion about food irradiation. I will not enter into this discussion except to say that I, too, am opposed to food irradiation. I just point out that all food on earth may be instantaneously irradiated if we do not put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. This amendment is a small step towards putting that genie back into the bottle, and we of course support it. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Sanders's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Sanders, N. K. Mason, C. V. J. Vallentine, J. Alston, R. K. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. JBlack, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Morris, J. Childs, B. K. Newman, J. M. Coates, J. Parer, W. R. Coleman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Elstob, R. C. Short, J. R. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Teague, B. C. Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. West, S. M. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clauses 6 to 24-by leave-taken together. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.33) —by leave-I move: (8) Page 4, clause 6, line 39, leave out ``Part'', insert ``Act''. (9) Page 6, heading to Part III, line 1, leave out ``EXECUTIVE'', insert ``BOARD''. (10) Page 6, clause 8, line 3, leave out ``an executive'', insert ``a Board of Directors''. (11) Page 6, clause 9, line 6, leave out ``The Executive shall consist of the Chief Executive Officer'', insert ``The Board shall consist of the Executive Director''. (12) Page 6, clause 9, line 8, leave out ``Chief Executive Officer'', insert ``Executive Director''. (13) Page 6, clause 9, line 17, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (14) Page 6, clause 9, line 18, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (15) Page 6, clause 9, lines 22 and 23, leave out ``Chief Executive Officer shall not be appointed as a member of the Executive'', insert ``Executive Director shall not be appointed as a member of the Board''. (16) Page 6, clause 9, line 25, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (17) Page 6, clause 9, lines 35 and 36, leave out ``Chief Executive Officer'', insert ``Executive Director''. (18) Page 6, clause 9, line 38, leave out ``Chief Executive Officer is absent from a meeting of the Executive'', insert ``Executive Director is absent from a meeting of the Board''. (19) Page 7, clause 9, line 4, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (20) Page 7, clause 9, lines 4 and 5, leave out ``Chief Executive Officer'', insert ``Executive Director''. (21) Page 10, clause 17, lines 8 to 11, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-clause (5), insert the following paragraphs: ``(a) determine the terms and conditions, including remuneration and allowances, if any, on which a person is to act under this section; and ``(b) terminate an appointment under this section at any time.''. (22) Page 10, clause 17, line 19, insert ``signed by the person and'' after ``writing''. (23) Page 10, clause 17, lines 20 to 25, leave out sub-clause (8), insert the following sub-clause: ``(8) The validity of anything done by or in relation to a person purporting to act in an office under this section shall not be called in question on the ground that- (a) in the case of a person purporting to act under sub-section (1)-the occasion for the person to act had not arisen or had ceased; or (b) in the case of a person purporting to act pursuant to an appointment under sub-section (2)-the occasion for the appointment had not arisen, there was a defect or irregularity in or in connection with the appointment, the appointment had ceased to have effect or the occasion for the person to act had not arisen or had ceased.''. (24) Page 10, heading to Part IV, line 26, leave out ``CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'', insert ``EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR''. (25) Page 10, clause 18, line 29, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (26) Page 10, clause 18, line 34, leave out ``staff member'', insert ``member of the staff of the Organisation''. (27) Page 10, clause 18, line 35, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (28) Page 11, clause 19, line 4, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (29) Page 11, clause 20, line 13, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (30) Page 11, clause 21, line 18, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (31) Page 11, after clause 21, insert the following new clause: Disclosure of interests ``21A. The Executive Director shall give written notice to the Minister of all direct or indirect pecuniary interests that the Executive Director has or acquires in any business.''. (32) Page 11, clause 22, line 20, leave out ``The Executive'', insert ``The Board''. (33) Page 11, clause 22, line 32, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (34) Page 12, clause 22, line 13, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (35) Page 12, clause 23, line 31, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (36) Page 12, clause 23, line 39, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (37) Page 13, heading to Part VI, line 1, leave out ``THE NUCLEAR SAFETY BUREAU'', insert ``SAFETY REVIEW''. I explained what these amendments are about in my preliminary statement during the Committee stage. I think they are self-explanatory. May I also take this opportunity formally to table the explanatory memoranda which take into account the amendments to be moved on behalf of the Government, relating to both this Bill-- Senator Puplick —The latest version? Senator GARETH EVANS —Indeed. They relate both to this Bill and to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill. Amendments agreed to. Clauses 6 to 24, as amended, agreed to. Proposed new clause 24A. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.34) —I move: (38) Page 13, after clause 24, insert the following new clause in Part VI: Safety Review Committee ``24A. (1) The Minister shall establish a Committee under the name Safety Review Committee. ``(2) The functions of the Committee are- (a) from time to time as the Committee considers appropriate, to review and assess the effectiveness of the standards, practices and procedures adopted by the Organisation to ensure the safety of its operations; (b) either on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister or of the Board, to investigate any matter arising out of the operations of the Organisation that may have adverse consequences or implications in relation to the safety of those operations; (c) either on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister, to furnish advice to the Minister on matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b); and (d) either on its own initiative or at the request of the Board, to furnish advice to the Board on matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b). ``(3) A reference in this section to the safety of the operations of the Organisation is a reference to the safety of the members of the staff of the Organisation and of the public in relation to those operations. ``(4) The Committee shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and submit to the Minister and to the Board a report of its operations during the year that ended on that date. ``(5) The Committee may submit to the Minister and to the Board such other reports relating to the operations of the Committee as the Committee considers appropriate. ``(6) The Minister shall cause a copy of each report received by the Minister under sub-section (4) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is received by the Minister. ``(7) The Minister may cause a copy of a report received by the Minister under sub-section (5) to be laid before each House of the Parliament if the Minister considers that the report is of sufficient importance to justify the report being brought to the attention of the Parliament. ``(8) For the purpose of the performance of its functions, the Committee may obtain advice or assistance from any member of the staff of the Organisation. ``(9) The Committee shall consist of such persons (not being fewer than 2, nor more than 6, in number) as the Minister from time to time appoints. ``(10) In making appointments to the Committee the Minister shall ensure that a majority of the members of the Committee are persons who are not members of the staff of the Organisation. ``(11) The Minister shall appoint one of the members of the Committee to be the Chairperson of the Committee and another of the members of the Committee to be the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee. ``(12) The Chairperson of the Committee may be referred to as the Chairman of the Committee or the Chairwoman of the Committee, and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee may be referred to as the Deputy Chairman of the Committee or the Deputy Chairwoman of the Committee, as the case requires. ``(13) A member of the Committee may resign from office by writing signed by the member and delivered to the Chairperson of the Board. ``(14) At a meeting of the Committee- (a) if the Chairperson of the Committee is present-he or she shall preside; (b) if the Chairperson of the Committee is not present but the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee is present-he or she shall preside; or (c) in any other case-the members of the Committee present shall elect one of their number to preside. ``(15) Subject to sub-section (14), the Minister may determine the procedure to be followed at or in relation to meetings of the Committee, including matters with respect to- (a) the convening of meetings of the Committee; (b) the number of members of the Committee who are to constitute a quorum; and (c) the manner in which questions arising at a meeting of the Committee are to be decided, and the Minister shall cause the Committee to be notified in writing of any determination under this sub-section. ``(16) If the Minister decides that the members of the Committee should be remunerated, those members shall be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. ``(17) Members of the Committee shall be paid such allowances as are prescribed. ``(18) Sub-sections (16) and (17) have effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973.''. The Australian Democrats have a number of amendments to proposed new clause 24A and the Government will be opposing those amendments. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(8.34) —by leave-I move: (1) Proposed new sub-clause 24A (6), after ``sub-section (4)'', insert ``or sub-section (5)''. (2) Leave out proposed new sub-clause 24A (7). (3) Proposed new sub-clause 24A (10), after ``members'' (second occurring) insert ``or former members''. (4) After proposed new sub-clause 24A (10), insert the following sub-clause: ``(10A) One of the persons appointed under sub-section (9) shall be a person representative of the interests of persons residing in the vicinity of nuclear reactors.''. (5) At the end of proposed new sub-clause 24A (11), add ``, but a member of the Committee who is a member or a former member of the staff of the Organization shall not be appointed to be the Chairperson of the Committee''. Our original amendments to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill included radical changes to the Nuclear Safety Bureau which would have turned it into an independent investigative watchdog, and the nation very much needs such a watchdog. The Government responded with its own amendment, No. 38, which leaves the Nuclear Safety Bureau, the NSB, in its original form, but creates a Safety Review Committee, an SRC, which is similar in function and structure to our original proposal for the NSB. However, there are some weaknesses in the SRC which this set of amendments seeks to correct. They are as follows: Our amendments (1) and (2) make it compulsory for the Minister to table all reports submitted to him by the Committee-that is, the SRC-within 15 sitting days of having received them. In the Government's amendments only the Committee's annual reports are compulsorily required to be tabled. Reports relating to specific incidents which the Committee has investigated need only be tabled at the Minister's discretion and in his or her own time. We feel it is important that the information be made available when the incident is going on-hopefully, when it has just been contained-and certainly within 15 sitting days of having received the information. Clearly, if the Government were allowed to continue on its present course, it would be a recipe for selective suppression of information on safety issues. The Parliament should have prompt and guaranteed access to all such reports, free of ministerial interference. The information should not be filtered through political expediency. One of the amendments ensures that the majority of Committee members are not, and have not been, members of ANSTO or the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The Government's amendments require only that the majority of members are not current members of ANSTO. Without our amendment, it would be possible to appoint an `old boys' committee, containing only past and present members of ANSTO and the AAEC. This would destroy the Committee's appearance of independence, thus eroding confidence in its integrity. The next amendment we offer would reserve a place for a community representative on the Committee, to give those on the front line a say in what is investigated, and how thoroughly. Our next amendment ensures that the Committee is chaired by a person who is not, and has not been, a member of ANSTO or the AAEC. The staff of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) assured me that the Minister intended to appoint an independent chairperson, but declined to explain why this was not provided for in the Government's amendments. The integrity of the Committee requires it to be independent. An independent chairperson is essential. We urge honourable senators to vote for our amendments. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.38) —The Government does not accept these amendments on the grounds that they are either undesirable or unnecessary, or both. Let me explain in regard to each of them why that is so. The first amendment requires the Minister to table in Parliament all reports submitted by the proposed Safety Review Committee. What that overlooks is that a great many of the reports that are required to be made under the legislation for essentially technical reasons may clearly not be of sufficient importance or interest to justify tabling and, as a result, it has been a matter for discretion by the Minister. An example which I have just been given by the Director of the Atomic Energy Commission is an operating malfunction within, say, some indicator system which has been prompted by an alarm mechanism or something of that kind and which has required the replacement of the piece of equipment in question, but in circumstances in which there have been no safety implications whatsoever; there has been no conceivable question of any actual hazard being caused to any individuals. The reason for the notification requirement is to ensure in this sort of instance that over time, if any pattern of malfunction builds up, that can be subject to appropriate technical redress. It is not a matter of covering up any particular safety incident that genuinely does involve a hazard to individuals. I have made it perfectly clear during my tenure of this post that when such issues do arise, or may be thought to arise-I refer, for example, to the question of the tampering with the water effluent pipe that arose a couple of times in the last year or so, which created negligible additional radiation in the water outlets but which may have been thought to have raised a safety issue-there has been no question of doing anything other than making an appropriate public release about it and getting the matter into the public domain. Equally it would be quite irresponsible for any government to behave otherwise. But these things can reasonably be left to ministerial discretion without the sort of mandatory requirement that would be inappropriate, given the nature of the reports that often occur in this subject area. The second amendment relates to essentially the same point. The third amendment would have the effect of excluding former members or staff of ANSTO as well as existing members from forming the majority of members of the Safety Review Committee. We see this as being unduly restrictive in the Minister's capacity to appoint the best qualified persons to be members of the SRC. It seems also to reflect somewhat adversely on the character of former members of ANSTO staff by implying that they might somehow put loyalty to their former employer before their professional integrity. That is something we do not see as appropriate or a legitimate inference that should be allowed to be drawn. Further, as it is expected that contract appointments will become more common within ANSTO, this amendment could prove to be particularly difficult in its practical effects. It would be ridiculous to prohibit the appointment to this Committee of a person who had been employed by ANSTO in some capacity or other for only a short period some years before. That situation is likely to arise in the future under the increasing use of contract employment. As to the requirement that there be some kind of local representative appointed to the Safety Review Committee, again we do not see this as being necessary to ensure that the interests of the local community, as perceived by at least some people in that community, are protected. If a person had the appropriate qualifications and if that person were also a local resident, obviously that nomination would be given very serious consideration. But the functions of the Committee are all about public safety as well as safety within the confines of the Organisation. The members of the Committee would be in breach of their statutory, not to mention moral, obligations if they did not have regard to public safety considerations. It is an over-reaction by the Democrats to their perception of what they think the problems are rather than being anything that is required either practically or from any common sense approach. The final amendment seeks to prevent a member or former member of ANSTO staff being the chairperson of the Safety Review Committee. Again, similar considerations apply. As I indicated earlier, it could unnecessarily limit the capacity of the Minister to appoint someone who is manifestly the best person for the position. This is particularly inappropriate again in the context of the point I made a moment ago about the increasing incidence of contract employment which is likely in one way or another in the years ahead to operate to wipe out the capacity to serve, if this amendment were adopted, of just about anyone who has had practical experience in the particular matters that the Safety Review Committee is being established to oversight. I can understand the spirit in which the amendments are offered, and certainly we have been happy to go along with the general approach of the Democrats in beefing up and giving a role, viability and a degree of independence to the Safety Review Committee. We have had no difficulty with any of those things. But I think that these extra layers of obligation and automatic reporting requirements, not just in the Commission's or Organisation's own domain but with all the majesty of a report to parliament, are going further than is required by the nature of the problems to which this clause is directed. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(8.44) —I support the Australian Democrats' amendments on this issue. It seems to me from what the Minister has just said that there will be very little independent monitoring of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. The bureau should be monitored by an independent regulatory committee somewhat along the lines of the United States National Regulatory Commission, and all nuclear activities should be matters for public debate. Obviously we shall be dealt up more of the same that we have had before on all matters nuclear in Australia-more secrecy, more cover up, less public involvement than we have had in the past. Ideally, the Safety Review Committee should have an adversarial relationship with ANSTO to keep it on its toes. Of course there should be non-expert and local involvement in this Committee. It should also be non-male, I hasten to add, because I think that very much part of the problem that we have got ourselves into with the whole nuclear nightmare is that it has been dominated by so-called experts in a patriarchal method of organisation. The representation of the Safety Review Committee should ensure that it stays in touch with the outside world and its concerns and is not so inward looking as would be the kind of review committee that the Minister has just outlined. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.46) —The Opposition will not support the Australian Democrats' amendment on this matter. This is yet another of those wet, trendy amendments that one gets from the Democrats on these matters. Senator Gareth Evans —Talk about pots and kettles. Senator PUPLICK —I warn Senator Evans that that is the second occasion this evening on which he has been provocative; otherwise he is doing extremely well. Nevertheless, there are a couple of matters I want to respond to and on which I seek some assurances from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). I was intrigued to hear Senator Vallentine use the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission as an example of what should be followed. If one has followed the debate in the United States, I think that one of the things that has most clearly emerged over time has been the criticisms made of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for its failure to deal adequately with a number of matters within the nuclear industry in that country. I am intrigued at the belief that this body will be substantially strengthened provided that it has female participation and non-expert participation. In the United States, for instance, if one had followed that basis undoubtedly one would have picked as a member of the Commission the former Governor of the State of Washington, Dixie Lee Ray. In those circumstances one could not think of a more wholehearted proponent of just about everything to do with the nuclear industry. The fact that Dixie Lee Ray happened to be a female, and, I think, a former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, would hardly by simple definition have added to the strength of this body. The idea that automatically by having non-experts on a panel one somehow substantially increases its capacity to perform its monitoring role is somewhat intriguing. Nevertheless, I wish to address a substantive point to the Minister and I know that legal opinions and commitments from Ministers are worth precisely what one pays for them. I wonder whether the Minister can envisage a situation in which if people wanted access to the reports which might have been prepared under proposed new clause 24A(5) those reports could not have been discoverable under a freedom of information request. If the Minister has a view that these reports would always be within the public domain one way or the other, I think that a number of the points put forward by the Australian Democrats lose some of their substance. The Minister as one of the great pro- ponents of freedom of information legislation, at least when he was on this side of the aisle, would be prepared to give that sort of assurance. On that basis the Opposition will be ad idem with the Government in rejecting the Democrats' amendments to propose clause 24A. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.49) —I am not altogether encouraged to reply to Senator Puplick by the build-up to his question, which suggests that any reply I offer will be worthless. Notwithstanding that, I am happy to assure him that from my understanding of the way in which these provisions would operate and the way in which the statutory authority and the Freedom of Information Act operate, it is inconceivable that a properly made request under the Act for information about some alleged safety issue would not result in the production of the material in question. It is exactly the sort of thing that the FOI Act is available to ensure. It is in the public domain. It ensures that there is a degree of discipline operating on those people who might be minded not to report things that manifestly should be reported. I am indebted to Senator Puplick for reminding me of the operation of the FOI Act-not, I hasten to add, that as a Government Minister I had forgotten about its existence. It is there obviously as a back-up to what would be regarded in most organisations, and certainly will be in this one, as a sensible public interest-minded administration. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(8.51) —I am disappointed to find that neither the Government nor the Opposition will support these amendments, because basically they are sensible amendments offered in good faith. Senator Gareth Evans said that he is happy to release information having to do with Lucas Heights. He cited the case where discharge was made into the local river and said that there was a public release of information. Perhaps Senator Evans can refresh my memory if I am wrong but I do not recall a report to Parliament on that matter or anything being tabled in Parliament. Senator Evans indicates by his curled lip and the shaking of his head that there was no report and implies that it was not necessary because, after all, he knew about it. Senator Mason —I asked Senator Evans a question about it. I got a very evasive reply. Senator SANDERS —Apparently Senator Evans did not even want to answer in full a question by my colleague, Senator Mason, who represents the concerned citizens of the Sutherland Shire. There would be no major difficulty in tabling those documents. All sorts of documents are tabled here every day, many of them far less significant to the people of Australia than an actual radioactive leak in the midst of a Sydney suburb. There would be no major difficulty unless there are so many incidents that their tabling would clog the parliamentary system. If this is the case, Lucas Heights should be shut down immediately. So there is no real impediment to tabling these reports unless Lucas Heights is so dangerous that the reports would be so prevalent that they would prevent us doing other work in the Senate. The rest of the argument was that only male experts should sit on the panel because only they would be able to know about and assess the dangers and the ways to deal with them. But as is well known, even if experts have no vested interests, which would be almost impossible, they still look for solutions only in certain areas. At this time in the United States one can get far more money being hired as a generalist than as an expert. That country needs people with a broad knowledge. Anybody can be trained up. A chimpanzee could almost be trained to be an expert in something but it takes a generalist with a broad overview to really pull the system together or determine what action should be taken in an emergency. This is an argument in favour of inviting people other than `experts in nuclear matters' to sit on such boards. Women are certainly necessary. They make up 50 per cent of the population; they are necessary to our continued existence. They have an input-I am sure that Senator Evans would call it emotional; maybe decry it as intuitive-and a major role to play in decision-making. They should be allowed to participate in this system. I am sorry that neither the Government nor the Opposition will support these amendments. The Opposition's only reason for not supporting them seems to be that we moved them. I find that to be unfortunate. I suppose that these will be yet another group of amendments which go down to oblivion because of politics rather than common sense. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Sanders's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Georges, G. Powell, J. F. Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vallentine, J. Mason, C. V. J. Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter McIntosh, G. D. Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Morris, J. Carrick, Sir John Newman, J. M. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Puplick, C. J. G. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Robertson, E. A. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sheil, G. Elstob, R. C. Short, J. R. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Teague, B. C. Giles, P. J. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. West, S. M. Jones, G. N. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Proposed new clause agreed to. Clauses 25 to 37-by leave-taken together. Amendments (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (39) Page 13, clause 25, line 35, leave out ``an approved bank'', insert ``the Reserve Bank of Australia or any other bank approved by the Treasurer''. (40) Page 14, clause 27, line 18, leave out ``Authority'', insert ``Organisation''. (41) Page 14, clause 30, line 41, at the end of the clause, add ``in writing''. (42) Page 15, clause 31, lines 2 to 4, leave out sub-clause (1), insert the following sub-clause: ``(1) The Organisation may, with the approval of the Treasurer, borrow money otherwise than from the Commonwealth on terms and conditions that are specified in, or are consistent with, the approval.''. (43) Page 15, clause 31, at the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause: ``(4) An approval under sub-section (1) shall be given in writing.''. (44) Page 15, clause 32, at the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause: ``(4) An approval under sub-section (1) shall be given in writing.''. Clauses 25 to 37, as amended, agreed to. Clause 38 (Advisory Council). Senator MASON(New South Wales)(9.05) —I move: Page 17, clause 38, after sub-clause (3), insert the following sub-clause: ``(3A) Of the persons appointed under sub-section (3)- (a) one shall be a person nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions; (b) one shall be a person representative of the interests of persons residing in the vicinity of nuclear reactors; (c) one shall be a member of a local government body which has responsibility for an area in which or near to which a nuclear reactor is located; and (d) one shall be a person nominated by an authority of a State having responsibility for the provision of emergency services.''. As a senator for New South Wales I move this amendment at the request of the people of Sutherland. I was somewhat concerned by statements made earlier in the debate that the people of Sutherland were not interested in, or concerned about, the fact that Lucas Heights was there. One could produce whole books of newspaper clippings from the local area and statements from local interest groups to indicate that that is absolutely untrue. The people of Sutherland are very interested in, and concerned-with good reason-about, the presence of a nuclear research establishment in their area. That is not totally unreasonable and I do not think the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), or anyone else could believe that it was unreasonable. The people perceive that this establishment has the potential to be dangerous and harmful and naturally enough they wish to consult their own interests on this matter. One hears a lot of rubbish about Lucas Heights being there first and people coming to live in the area afterwards, which is completely crazy. It is crazy that a research establishment such as Lucas Heights should continue to exist in the midst of what is virtually a southern suburb of Sydney. Clause 38 establishes an advisory council to advise the Minister and the Executive Council on matters relating to the functions of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. I would have thought that this organisation, of all organisations, should be one in which there is some reasonable representation of interest groups and semi-professional groups. Our amendment even suggests the inclusion of a member of the local State Emergency Services Authority. Surely the Government would agree that this is one place where an advisory council should have a genuine, sensible and useful community representation, not for any nitpicking reason but because it would make it a more useful body. After all, this is the Minister's link to the community. It seems to me that the Bill, in a sort of fuzzy way, tries to set up the advisory council for that reason. As the Bill stands, the advisory council would consist of up to 11 members, all but one of whom would be appointed by the Minister. The advisory council would include at least one staff member of the Organisation to be elected by the staff. The majority of the members must be drawn from outside the staff of the Organisation. I should hope so! The Australian Democrats feel that the rest of the members of the advisory council, appointed by the Minister, will almost inevitably be members of the `nuclear club'-that is, academics and professionals in the field of nuclear physics-all of whom will be in favour of nuclear energy and the continued existence, if not expansion, of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor on its present site. If that happens, the advisory body will have no sympathy with the local community and the local community will have no sympathy with it. The Minister has made no statement on the proposed composition of the ANSTO advisory board and even at this stage I would be most interested to have one. His department naturally assumes that it will be made up purely of nuclear physicists and the token member of ANSTO's staff. In Sweden and France and at Three Mile Island in the United States advisory boards exist-parallel organisations to the one we are considering in this Bill-and these bodies actually recommend to governments courses of action in relation to nuclear reactor siting and functions. They do so with good reason, because of the experience of those countries. I remind the Minister that even in France these advisory committees exist and have the power, among other things, to veto proposed siting and waste disposal methods. These committees include members of the so-called `nuclear club', but they also, very sensibly, include trade union representatives, local residents and sometimes local council appointees. This is world experience. This is what is being done elsewhere; our amendment merely proposes that it should be done here, and I can see no reason against it. Our amendment would considerably enlarge the scope of the membership of the ANSTO advisory board to include one person to represent the interests of local residents, which is not an unfair proposition; one member of a local government body responsible for the area in which the nuclear reactor is located, and there again there are very strong reasons why this could be useful purely as a machinery measure; a member of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, because that represents the trade unions and the workers; and a member of a local State emergency services authority who can advise on civil defence and other emergency procedures in the vicinity of the reactor. I would have thought that that again was a useful addition. The board would be constituted purely in an advisory capacity; it has no teeth in that sense, of course, but we believe that the views and the wide range of knowledge that those people have and the information and viewpoints that they could bring forward would be of immense value to the Minister. They would provide him with an advisory board which would be of use rather than being a tame pussycat. Any Minister with a conscience would of course seek the views of residents when making a decision concerning their local nuclear reactor. This amendment would make that process much simpler and would provide machinery for it. It would also give the Minister the benefit of a wide range of views and knowledge not otherwise available. In a way I can sympathise with what the Minister said earlier about committees and boards such as the safety committee that we have mentioned, and I suppose that I can sympathise to an extent with his political desire not to support our amendments, but I do say to the Opposition that, if it turns this amendment down, it is turning down something which is eminently reasonable. If the Opposition does turn down the amendment, I would like to hear its reasons for doing so. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.08) —I believe that Senator Mason, perhaps in the absence of some clear statement from the Government, has misconceived what this advisory council is being set up to do. It is not being set up to look at questions relating to the siting or functions of ANSTO and the reactor in a purely physical sense. Senator Mason —Well, it should be. Senator GARETH EVANS —It exists for that purpose to the extent of anything happening on that site which could possibly affect the local community. I think that such an occurrence is extremely unlikely because, as I have said, the chances of anyone being affected by the very small research reactor at Lucas Heights having a catastrophic failure are about the same as the chance of someone being electrocuted by a torch battery. We are not talking here about Three Mile Island; we are not talking here about a major energy producing power station of the kind to which Senator Mason was referring in describing advisory bodies elsewhere; we are talking about quite a different exercise altogether. To the extent that there may be local community concern-there is local community concern, as I am well aware from the endless representations that I have from the Shire of Sutherland group-we have a local liaison forum, a deliberately established body that has been set up involving many representatives of the local community and local interest groups who come together and discuss these things, as the vehicle through which information is imparted and through which views are sought. By contrast, the advisory council will not be just some little gaggle of nuclear physicists-professionals, academics and so on, as Senator Mason says-who will gather at the authority's expense for the occasional cup of tea and chat about the arcane matters which preoccupy them all, to the exclusion of the rest of us who are not initiated into those mysteries. We are talking about a body which will be largely commercial and user oriented in character and which will help wrench this Organisation-I do not want to be rude about what it has done in the past-back towards a focus which is outward looking towards the practical, industrial, medical, scientific, agricultural, environmental and other applications of the technology which has been there developed. We are concerned to get out beyond the range of that narrow band of nuclear physicists who have been preoccupied, perhaps excessively, with the inward looking character of the Organisation, feeding off each other rather than the needs of the wider community, and get that external input. We are concerned with user groups, industry bodies, representatives of non-nuclear technological areas where nonetheless, if carefully thought through, there may well be proper nuclear applications. That is essentially what I have in mind about establishing this body. We could load it up with the local policeman or ambulance driver, who would be involved under proposed sub-clause (d) of Senator Mason's amendment, or the local government bodies or community organisations which at present are amply accessed to the Organisation through the liaison forum or a person nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. At the moment it is envisaged that staff related matters that may come up will be coped with either by way of the expressly designated staff representative on the advisory council or the ACTU representative whom I am presently contemplating appointing to the board, the governing body, of the Organisation. The composition of that body has not yet been finally determined. It is still a matter for further consideration and discussion within the Government. But that is another way, at a much higher level in terms of the functioning of the Organisation, in which that representative function could perhaps better be embodied. We are talking about a user group oriented body. I am not proposing to move immediately to the appointment of it. I am contemplating that after this legislation is passed the body will come into formal operation some time during April, with a board appointed at about that time. I am not contemplating appointing the advisory council until at least a couple of months later-perhaps 1 July-to enable full discussion among all relevant interest groups and so on as to what the most appropriate balance of representation would be. It may be that some further thought could be given to the representation of at least one of the categories to which Senator Mason referred, but certainly the Government and I do not believe it makes any particular sense to tie our hands in the way that has been identified here. To do so is simply not necessary because, to the extent that those sorts of interests that Senator Mason has identified are involved, we believe that those interests can have their voices heard and their inputs made in other, more appropriate ways. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.14) —I indicate that the Opposition will not support this amendment. The explanation that has been given by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans)-in particular, the way in which he has drawn the distinction between the role to be played by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation advisory council and the existing liaison forum-is one which we accept. In any event, the nature of the Australian Democrats' amendment would not commend itself to us. If the real concern were with those persons who are workers at the nuclear establishment at Lucas Heights, there is no reason that the nomination should be in the hands of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The idea that a person who is representative of the interests of persons residing in the vicinity of nuclear reactors can be found is intriguing. Senator Mason has said that he can produce books of Press cuttings by interest groups relating to the establishment at Lucas Heights. I have no doubt that he can. I am more interested in whether he is prepared to provide books of Press cuttings prepared by the overwhelming majority of the residents of the area who are not members of organised interest and lobby groups but who support the continuation of the establishment at Lucas Heights. He went on to talk about one member of a local government body. He did not say whether he meant a council or electricity authority or whatever it happens to be. I can assure him that if he gets down to the local politics of Sutherland Shire he will find-Senator Gietzelt ought to be in the chamber this evening to give us the benefit of his undoubted wisdom on the way in which the politics of Sutherland Shire operate-that is a fairly tenuous way to draw such an amendment. I am sure the Minister will be mindful of the necessity to have a close working relationship with the people who are responsible for the provision of emergency services should they ever be required. The inclusion of proposed sub-clause (d) in the amendment seems to me to be simply another attempt by the Democrats to raise the whole spectre of emergency services as being necessary and the way in which they have attempted to frighten people about the nuclear industry in Australia. I reject the premise upon which the Democrats' amendment is drawn. I accept the clear assurances which have been given by the Minister about the nature of the representative persons whom he intends to appoint to the various bodies which he will have the responsibility to appoint once this legislation is passed. I accept his assurances about the different roles that the liaison forum and the advisory council will play. For those reasons, the Opposition will not support the Democrats' amendment. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(9.17) —With deep concern and disquiet I heard what the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) had to say. I remember going to Lucas Heights some years ago and looking around. I found out something which really appalled me which I raised here subsequently. That was that isotopes and other products coming from the Atomic Energy Commission to business which was using them for a profit were actually being supplied at a loss. In other words, the community generally and public revenues were subsidising this work. If the Atomic Energy Commission is capable of that degree of charity to the business community, God knows what will happen once the Minister has a group of businessmen on an advisory committee to heavy him into doing even more of that sort of thing. I would have thought that the kind of advisory committee which the Minister mentioned is absolutely unnecessary. Liaison can be carried out with business on an arm's length basis. I would have thought that any Minister would know that by now. It is best carried out on an arm's length basis, not with a snug little advisory committee telling the Organisation what to do and how it can best serve Australian business and get everything out cheaply. It seems a little confusing. This advisory council is to include one member of the staff of the Organisation. I cannot see why it should have one member of the staff of the Organisation if indeed it is to be a business user oriented committee which, presumably, will make decisions and then tell the Organisation what it is to do. Not only I but also the residents of Sutherland Shire will be deeply disquieted at this revelation of what this advisory committee is to be. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.19) —I despair of ever getting any sense into Senator Mason's perception of how the real world operates in the commercial, research or any other environment. Senator Mason —Do you think it is good that they should sell at a loss? Senator GARETH EVANS —I suppose there is a long history of sales of isotopes for medical and other uses at less than a total cost recovery basis, for a variety of reasons which have been the subject of extended examination over a long period. I can assure Senator Mason that, with the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and me riding shotgun in this respect, there has been a very substantial improvement in the extent to which cost recovery is obtained, but the nature of the operation is such as to make that difficult right across the board. We are talking not just about the supply of isotopes for a particular purpose but about the whole thrust and nature of the organisation-how the research program should be designed in such a way at the end of the day to encourage knowledge and research output which is useful not only in a pure nuclear physicists sense but also in terms of the long term needs not of some particular commercial kind of a particular business group which may benefit but of the Australian economy and the Australian community. It is exactly the kind of high-tech exercise which people are constantly exhorting Australia to engage in, to use the brain power, the education and the skills that we undoubtedly possess in this country to national commercial and economic advantage. The whole point of the exercise is to mobilise some of the best brains in the business-commercially oriented and user group oriented brains-to get the direction of the organisation focused again, to get a stance organised and focused, in such a way that it benefits not just the heroic band of scientists who have kept going with varying degrees of government indifference over the last few decades but this nation as a whole. That is what it is about and that is what we hope the advisory council will contribute to its deliberations, in exactly the same way that the advisory council that now exists for the Bureau of Mineral Resources hopefully has this role and the advisory councils that have existed in and around the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation have for such a long period played a role. This is the sort of thing we are getting at and that is why, I repeat, Senator Mason's amendment, addressed as it is to a different set of concerns, really is misconceived. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 39 to 42-by leave-taken together. Amendments (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (45) Page 19, clause 40, leave out paragraph (b) of sub-clause (1), insert the following paragraph: ``(b) the Minister's powers under sub-paragraph 5 (1) (a) (iii), sub-section 9 (10), sections 11 and 17, sub-sections 24A (1), (2), (9), (11), (15) and (16) and sections 26, 29, 38 and 43.''. (46) Page 19, clause 40, after sub-clause (2), insert the following sub-clause: ``(2A) A delegate is, in the exercise of a power so delegated, subject to the directions of the Minister.''. (47) Page 19, after clause 40, insert the following new clause: Delegation by Treasurer ``40A. (1) The Treasurer may, either generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of delegation, by writing signed by the Treasurer, delegate to a person holding or performing the duties of an office in the Department of the Treasury all or any of the Treasurer's powers under sections 31 and 32. ``(2) A power so delegated, when exercised by the delegate, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been exercised by the Treasurer. ``(3) A delegate is, in the exercise of a power so delegated, subject to the directions of the Treasurer. ``(4) A delegation under this section does not prevent the exercise of a power by the Treasurer.''. (48) Page 19, clause 41, after sub-clause (2), insert the following sub-clause: ``(2A) A delegate is, in the exercise of a power so delegated, subject to the directions of the Board.''. (49) Page 20, clause 42, after sub-clause (2), insert the following sub-clause: ``(2A) A delegate is, in the exercise of a power so delegated, subject to the directions of the Executive Director.''. (50) Leave out from the following clauses ``Executive'' (wherever occurring), insert ``Board'': 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 24, 26, 27, 38, 39 and 41. (51) Leave out from the following clauses ``Chief Executive Officer'' (wherever occurring), insert ``Executive Director'': 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 42. Clauses 39 to 42, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1985 The Bill. Amendments (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (1) Page 3, clause 10, line 23, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (2) Page 4, clause 12, line 8, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (3) Page 4, clause 15, line 36, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (4) Page 4, clause 15, line 43, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (5) Page 5, clause 15, line 5, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. (6) Page 5, clause 15, line 9, leave out ``Executive'', insert ``Board''. Bill, as amended, agreed to. ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Bill agreed to. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1985 and Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1985 reported with amendments, and Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1985 reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Bills be now read a third time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.25) —Unfortunately I did not have the opportunity of speaking to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill during the second reading debate. Although I do not propose on behalf of the Opposition to take a different attitude from the one which the Opposition has so eloquently stated, particularly during the Committee stages by Senator Puplick, I want to address some remarks to the Senate in relation to this package of legislation, which is of very great importance, particularly to the future economic welfare of this nation. The purpose of the Bills, as we now all know, is to repeal outmoded provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and to replace the Australian Atomic Energy Commission with a new organisation which is to be known as the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. While the coalition has no objection to the provisions which repeal outdated provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and the attempt to update the legislation which provides for the AAEC, the coalition is concerned about the direction of Government policy on restricted involvement by Australia in the nuclear fuel cycle which, of course, effectively limits the functions of the proposed organisation, this being effectively Government policy rather than based upon any provisions of the proposed legislation. We in the Opposition are aware of the considerable concern within the Australian community about the further development of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. This has no doubt been exacerbated by the accident at Chernobyl in April last year. The Senate will be well aware of the debate in this chamber on Chernobyl in which the coalition supported reasoned and informed debate on the issue and called upon the Government to establish a task force of suitably qualified independent experts to report to Parliament. The Government appointed a task force comprising staff of the AAEC which reported in September last year. Despite the call by the Opposition for a wider task force, we acknowledged at the time and repeat that we believe the report of the staff of the AAEC on Chernobyl was a most valuable one. I would like to quote a passage from it. It said: Understandably, the immediate response to the accident has been adverse and there is no doubt that the performance of the industry will be under closer scrutiny than ever before. Nevertheless it would be wrong to draw conclusions from Chernobyl which are subsequently invalidated as a more thorough understanding emerges. Since Chernobyl there has been a great deal more thorough and greater understanding of the circumstances of that accident and its implications for the future. It would be a disaster for Australia if, as a result of this current legislation and current government policy, Australia in future lost the expertise in any area of the nuclear fuel cycle, as exemplified by the report of the AAEC task force, which might again be required in the future. Since Chernobyl there has been major progress towards greater international co-operation through the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the report of the Government of the Soviet Union to a meeting of that Agency has now clearly revealed the nature of and reasons for that disaster. Of course, one of the most interesting and impressive events of the last year and certainly in the whole history of nuclear power development in the world was the fact that the Soviet Union attended this major conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency and gave very great detail about that whole incident. That in itself augurs well for future international co-operation in this area. It has done a great deal to allay the fears that were so irrationally expressed by many people about the likelihood of similar disasters occurring in quite different, far more modern and far safer nuclear reactors. Indeed, my attention was recently drawn to a scientific report commissioned by the Governor of the State of New Hampshire in the United States of America in the wake of Chernobyl concerning the operation of a new nuclear power plant that had been built but not commissioned in New Hampshire. The scientific experts reported that the chance of a Chernobyl disaster happening in the New Hampshire plant was in the order of one in a million. I think that rather confirms some of the remarks that were made earlier in the debate by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is at the table. Indeed, the Governor of New Hampshire, who commissioned that report, was re-elected last year. In the wake of Chernobyl I made the following statement on behalf of the Opposition: The implications of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster require rational and informed consideration and debate. The massive problem it presents for the whole world is not going to be resolved by hysterical and emotional statements but by calm and reasoned judgments. Above all it requires the clear understanding of the facts and the best advice that can be obtained. . . . . Although Australia has about a quarter of the Western world's resources of uranium these nuclear power stations can be supplied and are supplied from other sources. Closing our mines or preventing the development of new ones will not make any difference to the nuclear power industry. These simplistic, irrational solutions only divert attention from the real problem. We must work in conjunction with the rest of the world to enhance our control over nuclear power. We cannot just wish it away. I think the facts speak for themselves, because whether we like it or not the nuclear industry is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Hundreds of millions of people throughout the world depend on nuclear power for their electricity needs and, indeed, their standard of living. This demand is more likely to grow than to diminish. The latest information from the International Atomic Energy Agency reveals that nuclear power now accounts for over 15 per cent of world electricity production. At the end of 1986 394 nuclear powered reactors were already connected to electricity grids around the world in 26 countries. During 1986, 21 new reactors were connected. I think that in itself supports the stance that the Opposition took as I expressed in the quotations which I read. The coalition clearly supports the further development for peaceful purposes of the uranium and nuclear industries in Australia. It is concerned that the functions of this new organisation known as ANSTO should be broad enough to provide adequate government support for this development. The functions of the new organisation are described in very broad terms in the legislation. However, under clause 5 of the Bill the organisation is required to have regard in its activities to the national science and energy policy objectives of the Commonwealth government, that is the government of the day. Really, the policies of the Hawke Government are preventing research and development into uranium enrichment and power generation and, indeed, the further development of the nuclear fuel cycle other than the strait-jacket that the Government has laid down which I do not need to repeat. This policy is directly opposed to the Opposition's policy which supports further development of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia for, of course, peaceful purposes. The coalition urges that the Government should immediately implement all of the recommendations of the Australian Science and Technology Council report under the chairmanship of Professor Slatyer on the nuclear fuel cycle. The Government should remove the ban on the development of further peaceful stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. The ASTEC report is an independent and objective audit of policies and practices in regard to the Australian uranium and nuclear industries. In fact, this comprehensive and highly professional report was commissioned by the Hawke Government itself. It was a reasoned reference point in the wide and, unfortunately, the often uninformed and illogical public debate on nuclear issues in Australia which, of course, we frequently hear in this Senate. As recently as the Committee stage of the debate on this legislation we heard such remarks from certain senators. The Government response to the ASTEC report was predictably doctrinaire. The Government has a far more rational approach, I must concede, than some of the senators who have spoken in this debate. Nevertheless, its own policy on this whole subject is pretty irrational. Of course, the Government rejected recommendations relating to the mining and export of uranium beyond its present policies, which are totally irrational, and the recommendations regarding the further development of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. The Government's policy perpetuates a general lack of knowledge about the uranium industry, Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle and international safeguards. The Government's policy does not recognise the distinction between the development of the peaceful uses of the uranium industry, from which Australia stands to greatly benefit, and the link between our uranium industry and the international involvement in global energy security and nuclear non-proliferation, all of which are clearly explained by Professor Slatyer and the ASTEC report. The Government's policy is inequitable and results in a net cost to government and lost opportunities in terms of employment, exports and income. Australia has few industries which offer such scope for growth and development and we should not delay the opportunity for further development of the uranium industry in Australia-certainly not by this irrational ban on mines other than the three that have already been approved. On return to government the coalition will implement the recommendations of the ASTEC report. We support the mining and milling of uranium, subject to stringent Australian health and safety safeguards. The export of uranium should also be permitted, subject to stringent conditions of supply designed to strengthen the non-proliferation regime under our already existing bilateral safeguard agreements and the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We would remove the veto on development of proven uranium deposits such as those of Jabiluka, Koongarra, Yeelirrie, Beverley and Honeymoon. We would support exploration development of further commercial uranium deposits subject, of course, again to environmental laws and so on. We would co-operate with the industry in assessing the feasibility of establishing a commercial uranium enrichment industry in Australia for peaceful purposes and, of course, under IAEA supervision. We would encourage continuing research and development in Australia of the technology of safe disposal of nuclear wastes. That is a bipartisan view because it is one of the restricted developments of the nuclear fuel cycle which the Government is already agreeing to. We give some credit to the Government in that respect. We would promote improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of the IAEA's safeguard operations. We would maintain an active role in higher international standards of safety and surveillance which, of course, is already under way through the International Atomic Energy Agency, and accelerated, as I have already explained, post-Chernobyl. We would advocate an extended safeguard system incorporating the most stringent safeguards which are part of the existing bilateral agreements. The coalition considers that the proposed organisation to replace the Australian Atomic Energy Commission should be able to participate fully in any future research and development of these aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. Further, it should be very active in educating the public and, I might say, some honourable senators in particular on the cross benches in this place about the nature of the development of a nuclear fuel cycle, which is supported, as I have said, by scientific reports such as that of ASTEC and the one I mentioned earlier which was commissioned by the Governor of New Hampshire. It certainly needs to be far better understood in Australia-it can be understood only by better education of Australians-that uranium and nuclear energy are a fact of life, can be controlled, and can and will be a major component of the world energy scene, whether or not Australia likes it. It is no use hiding from the fact and turning our own efforts away from any further involvement in the peaceful development of the nuclear fuel cycle. The oil energy crisis of the 1970s caused an upsurge in the placing of orders for nuclear reactors. However, the onslaught of recession, the severely rising costs of reactors, and the emergence of several safety incidents, such as Windscale, Three Mile Island and most recently Chernobyl, have caused a number of cancellations and delays. That is understandable enough, provided that those matters are given to proper scientific study and not, as I have said, irrational reactions. However, on the contrary, acid rain from coal and oil burning power stations, particularly in Europe, constitutes a serious and growing threat of atmospheric pollution, a widespread destruction of flora and fauna, and a menace to human health. I interpose to say that last year I had the privilege of calling on, and discussing this whole question with, the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr Hans Blix, a distinguished Swedish public servant, who now heads up that agency. To me, indeed worldwide, the burden of his case is that, even though there may be problems for the world with nuclear energy and nuclear power generation, the uninhibited use of coal for energy generation is even more serious. In addition to the acid rain problem, the greenhouse effect, which was also emphasised to me by Mr Blix, is caused by increasing carbon discharge from fossil fuel burning power stations which is raising the earth's atmospheric temperature and threatening to so heat the upper atmospheric that it will adversely affect the world's ecology. While not discounting the important role of alternative energy sources in the world-and I know that this will be the answer for the likes of Senator Sanders and others-they contribute only the most limited solution to the world's demand for energy. The world will become increasingly reliant upon nuclear energy if we want-as all people want-to maintain and improve our standards of living. I do not think Senator Sanders will find too many people prepared to go down the economic gurgler with him in his way-out notions about alternative energy. If all reactors now under construction were commissioned, output from these plants would more than double by the end of the century. I have already mentioned some interesting developments, post-Chernobyl, in relation to the New Hampshire report. The recent report of the British Government on its proposed Sizewell power station on the Suffolk coast was also favourable. That inquiry, which sat for 350 days, was probably the most exhaustive inquiry ever conducted into the question of a nuclear power station, and its report has been favourable. It has been forecast that the United Kingdom Government will bite the bullet and will decide to go on with the power station; even though an election may be looming. In addition, I think the results of the recent West German elections probably indicate that public concern in Europe about nuclear matters, particularly post-Chernobyl, has not had the effect that many people thought it would. In several countries nuclear power now accounts for 50 per cent of total installed generating capacity. In France, of course, it accounts for 65 per cent. So it is abundantly clear that nuclear power generation will persist and increase, whether or not Australia exports uranium. It is equally clear that Australia is missing substantial opportunities to secure uranium markets and to influence the peaceful uses of uranium. The ASTEC report concludes that the present free world consumption of uranium will at least double into the 1990s, and certainly by the year 2000. There are up to date estimates of this and the Australian production of uranium from the Bureau of Mineral Resources at the end of 1986, because the ASTEC report is perhaps a couple of years out of date now. I seek leave to incorporate a table in Hansard. I have shown it to Senator Gareth Evans and he said that he would agree to its incorporation. Leave granted. The table read as follows- URANIUM PRODUCTION Ranger Nabarlek Total 1984 ... 3,775 1,401 5,176 1985 ... 2,519 1,315 3,834 1986 ... 3,496 1,402 4,899 Production fell in 1985 as production was larger than expected in 1984 due to increased production at Ranger to test the capacity of the mill. Ranger production management stated that production was being held at levels necessary to meet contract obligations. Ranger production capacity is being expanded. Now stands around 3800t. 4500t later in the decade. 6000t early in the 1990s. VALUE OF MINE PRODUCTION 1982 1983 1984 1985 Value of Production ... 392 317 428 308 Value of Exports ... 415 296 312 315 COMPUTED URANIUM REQUIREMENTS BEST PROJECTION IN WESTERN WORLD 1985 1990 2000 2005 Annual 000t (u) ... 35 42.5 55.4 72.0 World production in 1985 was estimated to be 34,756t(u) SOURCE: Bureau of Mineral Resources statistics (1985) Australian Mineral Industry Review Senator DURACK —I thank the Senate. As I said, the ASTEC report also adds that world requirement for uranium will be very considerably increased through to the end of this century and that Australia has great potential. In estimating the market potential for uranium, the report concludes: The market provides opportunities for Australian uranium producers to gain additional contracts and to increase exports beyond present levels. If Australia were to secure one third of the uncommitted share of the market, a reasonable assumption on the evidence available, that would lead to a doubling of the amount contracted for delivery between 1984 and 1996. Most of the new exports would occur in the 1990s. In terms of low cost, high grade and readily accessible and marketable uranium ore, Australia's potential is massive. As I have said, it now has in the order of 30 per cent of the world's known and reasonably assured resources. Of course, in addition to the production of uranium at Ranger and Nabarlek and the proposed production at Roxby Downs, which are the approved productions by the Government, there are four major projects for which development approval has already been given: Yeelirrie in Western Australia, Honeymoon in South Australia, Lake Way in Western Australia and Jabiluka in the Northern Territory. Three more deposits have also had vast sums spent on them and are ready for development: Koongarra in the Northern Territory, Ben Lomond in Queensland, and Beverley in South Australia, all of which, under the policy of the Opposition, would be able to be brought into production in time to benefit from that increasing world demand. Despite the money spent, totally hundreds of millions of dollars, all seven of these projects have come to a dead stop. Capital costs to get these under way would be well over $1,000m, so there would be direct employment for 3,000 people or more; and permanent employment for about 1,400 people would be available from such full scale development, apart from the export earnings that would be achieved. The ancillary economic benefits to Australia generated by further mining and export of uranium are enormous. They include, of course, those sorts of economic activities, the multiplier effects of employment creation, government revenue, and new facilities and infrastructure. The combined contribution to national income by the end of the century by all four uranium deposits in the Northern Territory alone has been estimated at over $10 billion by the Australian Mining Industry Council. In addition to these prospects, the Fraser Government set up the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia, comprising representatives of four Australian enterprises, to study and report upon the feasibility of uranium enrichment in Australia. UEGA reported that there would be a market for an Australian enrichment plant from the beginning of the 1990s; that Australia has the industrial capacity and technology to build and operate such a plant; that the preferred technology would be the centrifuge; that Australia should investigate the real prospect of a partnership with a European group-Urenco-Centec-using that consortium's technology; and that additional markets should be explored, particularly the Japanese market, together with the possibility of some Japanese shares in the co-partnership. However, following the election of the Hawke Government UEGA sought government credentials to enable high level discussions with those countries to continue but this was not forthcoming and the Hawke Government has phased out funding for the centrifuge enrichment research at Lucas Heights. That has been one of the real blows by this Government to morale and, indeed, the future strength of the team at Lucas Heights. Also a valuable additional market for Australian uranium in the form of enriched uranium has been lost as well as further significant employment opportunities offered by an enrichment industry. In addition, a part of the nuclear fuel cycle particularly sensitive to non-proliferation scrutiny could have come under Australian control and surveillance and this added to the total world security against weapon making. The IAEA regards enrichment and reprocessing as the two areas vulnerable to weapons diversion. Regular inspection of an enrichment plant can readily detect whether it is being used for electricity generation or weapons purposes. The enrichment process does not present significant health hazards to workers or the community. The material is not highly radioactive. Such hazards as there are are common to chemical plants and ample safeguards are available. The ASTEC report has stressed that world security and nuclear non-proliferation are best enhanced when the supply and processing of fissile material for peaceful purposes is in the hands of a limited number of nations all of which are pledged to observe and enforce the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, as is Australia. Australia is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and other international treaties. These matters will be debated when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill is before us. It is clearly in Australia's interest to encourage other nations to join the NPT and for us to set a good example by observing these standards. I think this is a further way in which Australia can contribute to the success of the non-proliferation regime. So by this shortsighted policy the Government is passing up not only economic benefits to Australia but also the opportunities Australia has to contribute significantly in a practical way to the success of the non-proliferation regime. We believe that ANSTO should be in a position to fully co-operate in such international efforts in the future. On our return to government we will resume negotiations for the enrichment process in Australia. In discussions I had last year in the United Kingdom with the Urenco people, they expressed very great continuing interest in resuming negotiations with Australia. Unfortunately, the current policy of the Government in relation to ANSTO is in conflict with this objective. In conclusion, although the Opposition is strongly opposed to the Hawke Government's uranium policy it supports this Bill. On return to government we will use the powers that are given under it to the Commonwealth Government-our government-and in accordance with our policy we will implement the policies that I have outlined in my speech and use ANSTO in a positive and economically productive way. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(9.54) —In spite of my reservations about the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1985, I must commend the Government for removing the draconian security provisions of the old Act and for explicitly prohibiting ANSTO from undertaking any research or development into the design or production of nuclear weapons or other explosive devices. I want to make just a couple of concluding remarks about the ANSTO legislation. I must agree with one thing that Senator Durack has just said and that is to reiterate his call for increased education about the nuclear industry. What he has just said demonstrates very clearly that that need is urgent. The reports that he referred to have all been conducted by people who have a vested interest to serve in promoting the nuclear industry. When the people have the information before them, when the shrouds of secrecy are lifted about the nuclear industry, as happens on rare occasions, the people decide for themselves very clearly that nuclear technology is inappropriate and it is not something to which Australia should be moving towards. I reiterate that the ANSTO legislation seems to lack clear and specific direction and purpose. It is regrettable that the amendments suggested this evening concerning positive research aspects for ANSTO and also the amendments concerning regulation and monitoring have been rejected. They would have made the legislation a little more palatable. There is no mention in the legislation of whether ANSTO will be involved in any non-nuclear energy research with, for example, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and what liaison CSIRO and ANSTO would have under this new Bill. I am also very concerned about the secrecy surrounding the nuclear industry. It is to be hoped that the new body will not be as secretive as its predecessor although I have my doubts about that. I doubt that there will be full public accountability particularly with regard to leaks of radioactive material from the aging reactors at Lucas Heights. I sincerely hope that when the Government decides to shut down Lucas Heights any future plan for Australia's participation in the nuclear industry is openly and fully debated in the community. I think the people of Australia deserve that. I cannot agree with comments made by members of the coalition and the Government that Australia should proceed along the nuclear technology path albeit for so-called peaceful purposes. There can be no guarantee of safety in any aspect of a nuclear fuel cycle particularly with regard to food irradiation which we do not need. We should not be jumping on to that particular technological band-wagon which potentially is very dangerous indeed. What we should be researching in the nuclear field are the effects of radiation on human, animal and plant life. This significant omission means that we continue to rely on overseas research in areas where we should be conducting our own. This seems even more imperative in the light of the McClelland Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia which clearly showed that there were, and continue to be, victims of the British nuclear testing program in the 1950s. We should also be researching the long term effects of low level radiation following warnings from overseas scientists about the permanent damage being done right now to the world's genetic pool. Lucas Heights now carries out environments research. However, I believe that ANSTO's role in this important area should be considerably expanded. There are numerous examples of damage to the Australian environment from uranium mining, for example, at the Rum Jungle site in the Northern Territory and at the Ranger mine. The management at Ranger continues to be plagued with problems associated with waste disposal, such as frequent leakages of contaminated water into the Magela Creek. Roxby Downs also poses its own set of environmental problems with its acute shortage of water. In conclusion, I think it is vital that ANSTO directs its research activities towards protecting our environment and our people from the effects of nuclear radiation. Unfortunately, I fear that the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1985, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1985 and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1985 will not give ANSTO and the Nuclear Safety Bureau the sense of purpose and appropriate tasks they should nor do I feel that they are sufficiently independent so that we can rely on them. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a third time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I will move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. Debate resumed from 4 June 1986, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.00) —The Opposition supports the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986. It implements policies which the Opposition stongly supports and which, in fact, have been developed by earlier governments as well as by this Government. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect in Australian domestic law to Australia's international obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation regime. I have already spoken at some length about the international importance of this regime and the way in which it works. Its agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is the watchdog and policeman of that regime throughout all the nations which are parties to it. That regime is designed to prevent the diversion of nuclear material from use for peaceful purposes to the development of nuclear weapons. The activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency throughout the world are designed to ensure that that does not occur. Unfortunately, as we know, a number of nations are not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As I said in my speech on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Bill, the more nations there are which are signatories to that Treaty and which can keep control over the nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes, the more likely it is that that regime will be successful. The international obligations which are being met by this Bill are those arising under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was ratified by Australia in 1973, and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is, as I said, the instrument which enforces the obligations of the NPT throughout the world. The legislation gives effect in domestic law to the bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements in respect of the export of Australian yellowcake. It gives effect to our Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The bilateral safeguards agreements now total 11, in addition to the Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Agency. Those bilateral safeguards agreements were pioneered by the Fraser Government and will, of course, be continued and developed by the coalition parties when we are returned to office at the next election. Those bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements extend further, in a more developed and even more sophisticated way, the obligations that Australia has under the International Atomic Energy Agency statute and the NPT. That international regime does not commence at the uranium mining stage; in other words, it does not apply to the monitoring and checking of yellowcake production and sale. But our own bilateral safeguards agreements require that control even at that stage. It is a condition of our export of uranium under those agreements that those safeguards arrangements should apply. They give a very much added dimension to the safety and control of the nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes. Australia contributes to this cycle by the mining, milling and export of uranium. The Bill also contains provisions to give effect to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which Australia has signed, but has not yet ratified. Perhaps when the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) replies, he could give some indication of what the Government's plans are in relation to the ratification of that Convention. This Convention is aimed at the unlawful acquisition of nuclear material by theft, fraud, robbery, et cetera. Of course, in this day and age it is not fanciful by any means that this could occur and, therefore, strict international rules should be implemented, as far as possible, by all nations of the world, but certainly by all of those which are parties to this Convention. This is a timely requirement. The final thing that the Bill does is to upgrade the status of the Australian Safeguards Office to that of a statutory authority, with the Director of the Australian Safeguards Office being appointed by the Governor-General. I do not need to detain the Senate by describing the role of that Office-its function as a nuclear policeman within Australia, as the agent of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and its role in policing our safeguards agreements in relation to exported Australian uranium. That Office has a very notable and important role to play. The Opposition supports the added status of that Office which is given by this legislation. As we have already seen in a previous debate on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1985, unfortunately, as a result of this Government's policy, Australia has only a limited nuclear industry, which is constricted even further as Government policy is maintained. We are mining and exporting uranium from only three mines, one of which has a very limited life. But the Government's policy would not allow that mine to be replaced by another mine. Indeed, there seems to be some doubt about the extent to which the Government would allow Queensland Mines Ltd to continue to pursue reserves elsewhere. The Australian uranium industry is a very small one and, under this Government, is without much growth. This Bill really applies only to the mining companies and, of course, to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. It also, however, would apply to universities; in particular, to independent research in those universities into the nuclear fuel cycle. It may have implications for academic research. I am told that it does not apply to the production of radioisotopes as a by-product of the Lucas Heights reactor, but it does apply to the use of depleted uranium in several commercial activities. The application of this Bill in Australia, although it may not be widespread, is of significance to those people who may be affected by it. It does impose very draconian penalties for those who possess or transport nuclear material without the permits that are required under this legislation. The Minister in his second reading speech indicated that the Government has widely advertised the possible application of this legislation so that people who may be caught by it will be alerted and almost certainly will be able to obtain the necessary permit. There is no evidence in Australia, fortunately, of any misuse of nuclear material by way of diversion to weapons production. Nevertheless, it could apply to quite innocent people who are going about their affairs in a lawful manner and who may not know about it. If the Minister would give some attention to the debate, I would like him to tell us when he replies to the debate what the result of those advertisements has been, whether the Government believes that the efforts it has made to alert people to the dangers of the possible application of this Bill to them have been successful, and whether, generally, the Government feels that innocent people will not be affected by the application of this legislation. The scheme of the Bill requires a permit for the possession and transport of nuclear material and associated items. The definition of associated items is widely defined to refer to equipment designed for use in nuclear activities, such as the enrichment of uranium and nuclear reactor technology. It also covers documents containing information, other than that contained in lawfully available publications, concerning such equipment, material or processes. Heavy penalties are imposed on people or institutions which do not acquire the necessary permits for the possession of this equipment or who may exchange information. Again, there seems to me to be a real concern that academic researchers going about their ordinary endeavours of pure scientific research, unless that has been published, may well be caught by the extended definitions in this Bill relating to associated items. This could be of considerable concern to people in universities. It could affect scientists in independent institutions and the Atomic Energy Commission itself, although I presume that the Commission will be sufficiently alert to the provisions to ensure that it is not caught by them, but this could happen. I again ask the Minister in his reply to give some attention to this aspect of the legislation. I feel that there is a serious problem here in terms of academic freedom and research in that the permission of a Minister will be required for such research to be carried out in relation to associated items connected with nuclear material. Although Australia has been a prominent supporter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime for many years and is a member of the governing council of the International Atomic Energy Commission, and although we have all the bilateral safeguards Bills which were pioneered by the Fraser Government, so far we have been able to get by under this international regime without legislation of this kind. We have been able to satisfy those international obligations. Indeed, the Minister in his second reading speech said: This approach has been successful and there has never been the slightest suggestion from the bilateral partners nor from the IAEA that Australia has not complied with its nuclear safeguards obligations. One must ask why-and I do not think the Minister has said why-it is necessary to have this legislation on the books. The Government may feel that it will be desirable for political reasons. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation because it gives effect to policies supported by the Opposition, but there is a tendency in this place to believe that there is some benefit per se in passing legislation. Certainly the Minister for Resources and Energy, who is in charge of this Bill, is a great proponent of the belief in legislation for its own sake. I do not know whether this legislation is in that category. I would like some further explanation from the Minister as to why we are putting on the statute book a long, complicated and difficult piece of legislation which contains draconian penalties. I flag my concern that the Bill might be used to restrict scientific research into the nuclear fuel cycle and that research workers could be badly affected. However, on the other hand, I understand that most of the people who are engaged in research in this area are used to the sorts of restrictions in other countries and that hopefully they will be able to live with this legislation. It depends very much on the way in which the Government goes about administering the legislation. I have been pleased at the Government's efforts to inform people of its possible implications. I would like a further explanation from the Minister as to the way in which the Government sees the legislation being administered sensibly, not increasing the paperwork, the red tape, bureaucracy and general irritation that people feel flowing from the extended regulations that this Government seems continually to impose on the Australian electorate. The Opposition is seriously worried about the extent to which this Bill could be used by a government to prevent the operation of our defence arrangements with nuclear allies. The Bill in general requires a permit for the possession or transport of nuclear material. It is clear that under the ANZUS treaty and within our traditional Western alliance we have in our defence arrangements allies who are nuclear powers and who do not as a matter of policy state whether or not their warships carry nuclear weapons. It would be almost impossible to administer this legislation literally in relation to our existing defence policies-the defence policies of this Government as well as the policies which would be pursued by the Opposition. I am not satisfied that the Bill adequately copes with that situation. As a result of that concern the Opposition will be moving an amendment to raise that matter and to endeavour to overcome it. We are not intransigent on the matter. If the Government has better ways of dealing with the matter or can satisfy the Opposition that it is misguided in those concerns, we will listen to what the Government has to say. With those reservations, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. We would like to have assurances from the Government on the various matters I have raised, and we will certainly be proposing an amendment to protect our existing defence arrangements with our nuclear allies. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(10.17) —The Australian Democrats support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill, although we feel that it is a classic case of bolting the barn door after the horses have long since disappeared over the farthest hill. The time for this Bill and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would have been in 1945. Now there are 50,000 nuclear weapons around the world; they have proliferated. The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty has simply not worked. Anybody who did not want to sign it did not sign it. Those who did sign it and had nuclear weapons were allowed to continue to produce nuclear weapons. As a result in the world today not only do the super-powers have nuclear weapons but minor powers have them as well. This Bill enacts obligations under the NPT and other international agreements and places controls over movement of nuclear materials and technology within Australia and formally establishes an Australian Safeguards Office to administer those controls and trace Australian origin nuclear material and technology overseas. I am less interested in discussing the Bill than the agreement on which it is based. The NPT has two glaring weaknesses that cannot be papered over by the legitimacy of legislation. First, it seeks to stop countries from acquiring nuclear weapons while promoting the civilian use of nuclear energy at the same time. This is a major conflict of interest. We have seen over and over again that the military and so-called peaceful uses are inseparable. Civilian reactors used for power production are also producing plutonium which is used for weapons. In fact, most of the weapons produced by the Third World nations have been produced from civilian power reactors. The two technologies are not only related; they are identical. The success, or lack of success, of the NPT should be judged in light of the fact that South Africa, India, Pakistan and Israel are capable of producing nuclear weapons, while Argentina and Brazil are not far behind. Israel should now be referred to as the world's sixth nuclear power. The revelations of Israeli nuclear technician Mordecai Vanunu, who is now on trial for his life in Israel, leave no doubt that Israel has up to 200 nuclear weapons, including thermonuclear bombs. Let no one in this chamber doubt that if Israel felt under threat of annihilation it would start bombing capitals nearby, such as Damascus. It would react in this way simply because it would have no choice if it were being overrun. How did Israel get this technology? It was through the civilian nuclear fuel cycle and a secret reprocessing plant. That is the trouble with safeguards: They do not work if somebody wants to keep an item secret. How did the Israelis achieve the technology? Who helped them? It was France, through the supply of nuclear technology and information on the design of nuclear weapons. France keeps cropping up in nuclear matters. This is the France to which the Government has now okayed the selling of uranium; this is the France which is testing nuclear weapons in the Pacific, which the French, of course, claim is France but which we know certainly is not France. If these tests are so safe it would be far cheaper to have them in continental France, not in a colony of France. France is the country which, on the best evidence, is about to switch its testing grounds from Mururoa Atoll to the Kerguelens. The Kerguelens are upwind of Western Australia and Tasmania. Any leakage into the atmosphere from the Kerguelens will come across the Australian continent. There will also be great damage to the wildlife in the area of the Kerguelens. So France helped Israel. Were there any safeguards? No, there were not. Were any Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty covenants involved? No, there were not. France is not a signatory; nor is Israel. The second glaring weakness of the NPT is that it requires the nuclear weapons nations to work in good faith towards disarmament. The reverse has happened. The arms race is accelerating dangerously. This seriously undermines the non-proliferation regime by setting a poor example to nations tempted to join the nuclear club. Australia helps to weaken the cause of non-proliferation. We export uranium to several countries, including three nuclear weapon states-France, Britain and the United States-and we give the nod to the arms race by remaining the yes men of what is left of ANZUS. No legislation will compensate for the damage that Australia's policies in these areas are doing to the non-proliferation regime. There is no real way to implement the safeguards. In these chambers we have actually discovered the devious route of Australian uranium to France, to Russia and, finally, to Finland. The way it works is that we sell our yellowcake to Finland for use in its nuclear reactors, but the route it takes is, first, to France for conversion into uranium hexafluoride. Until very recently there were no safeguards over our yellowcake in France. In any event, France has proven to be very untrustworthy in nuclear matters. In fact, the French are the hooligans of the world nuclear establishment. Our yellowcake goes to France where it is converted into uranium hexafluoride-a gas. This gas is then transported to the Soviet Union where it is added to the large pool of Soviet uranium and enriched to reactor grade uranium. We have no safeguards officers in the Soviet Union. We have no way of checking what goes on in the Soviet Union. All we do is say that so many kilograms of uranium hexafluoride go into the Soviet Union and so many kilograms of enriched uranium come out and that therefore we know where it all went. But we do not know exactly where it went and we have found over and over again-at least in the United States-that the companies enriching the uranium cannot account for all their uranium or plutonium. Certainly there is no way for us to account for what happens in the Soviet Union. This enriched uranium still does not go directly to Finland; it goes to West Germany or Sweden, where it is converted into fuel rods. Again, supposedly, we keep track of the uranium and it ends up in Finland. A disturbing segment of this fuel cycle is that the tails of the enrichment program are sent from the Soviet Union back to France. The Australian Democrats, through questioning in the Senate, discovered that 159,000 kilograms of uranium tails are in France. This material is very capable of being used in French fast breeder reactors for the production of plutonium. The French have a requirement for a number of new nuclear weapons. This is why they are testing the weapons at Mururoa Atoll. The way they will obtain their plutonium is through their Phenix and Super Phenix fast breeder reactors. This is the main way that they will get their plutonium. The main way of getting plutonium is by putting tails from the enrichment process as a blanket in the fast breeder reactor. The Australian tails are supposedly there. As the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, has stated, the tails do not actually have a flag on them like a toothpick in an olive, saying: `These tails belong to Australia'. This is an accounting procedure. In some place in France there are 159,000 kilograms of uranium tails which originated in Australia. We do not know exactly where they are. Neither does the Safeguards Office, but it says that they are in existence. This really means-as in the case of selling uranium to France in the first place-that even if the uranium is used for peaceful purposes it liberates this material for use in war items. So safeguards are meaningless. There is no real way to implement them. The truism of the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear weapons production is that they breed not only fear but secrecy. In practice, no country which has either a nuclear weapons technology or a nuclear power industry can operate without extreme secrecy. On the one hand, such countries claim that because of the difficulties caused by terrorism and sabotage they must not give out facts. In the commercial industry there is secrecy because of the commercial nature of the process and reluctance to allow a competitor to find out trade secrets. The nuclear power industry and nuclear weapons industry are shrouded in secrecy. This makes it doubly difficult for any safeguards to operate. We must then take the word of many of the companies and governments involved, and of course this is not good enough. Recently the Australian Broadcasting Corporation showed a six-part series called the Edge of Darkness. It was fiction, but it showed the difficulties involved in an average person in the British Isles finding out what was happening in the nuclear power industry. Very briefly, the plot involved an illegal enrichment plant operating under the guise of a reprocessing plant. It got very convoluted and complicated, but the message was very clear: The government was in on it, the military was in on it, the uranium industry and the nuclear power industry were in on it; but the people were kept in the dark and those who tried to find out about it were killed for their troubles. This is the problem of the nuclear industry. It cannot operate in the full light of publicity with full safeguards. We will attempt to amend this Bill by requiring a report to be issued annually on the exact location of all the Australian fissile material and the location of the uranium which is being shipped, has been shipped, is being enriched and is being reprocessed. This report shall be given every year and be made public. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.31) —I rise on the adjournment to record the death of a friend of mine, Mr Ernest Marty, who died this morning after a very short illness. Ernest Marty had been a lobbyist here in Canberra for about 27 years. He was a quiet, persistent lobbyist who pursued the interests of his many clients and he represented them faithfully during that long period. During the latter years of his service in this respect he was joined by his wife, Judy, and the work that they have done has been most helpful to me, to many other senators and to Federal members of parliament, in understanding the points of view of people in the community about pieces of legislation that affect their particular interests. Hardly a week has passed during the parliamentary sessions when Marty, as he was affectionately known to many of us, has not been in Canberra. I first met him in 1971 when he discussed the problems of the wine industry with me and, as a result of this meeting, the Senate referred the problems of the wine and grape growing industry to the appropriate Senate committee which, at that time, was chaired by Senator Sheil. This proved to be a most useful exercise for the industry because the report of that Committee focused attention very clearly on the difficulties being faced by the wine and grape growing industries in Australia. In the past Ernest Marty also took a close interest in the plant variety rights matter and legislation covering that subject will be dealt with in the Senate very shortly. His help to many members of parliament during the process of evaluating that particular Bill has been much appreciated. Ernest and Judy Marty have also been most interested in the coal industry and in recent times have been of tremendous assistance to that important industry in directing the attention of members of parliament and senators to the concerns that coal miners in Australia have faced. In fact, I intended visiting Ernest Marty next week in order to talk to him because I believe he would have valued that continued contact in spite of his serious illness. However, that was not to be. It seems a stroke of fate that he should have died today, on the first sitting day of the autumn session of Parliament. Over the years I recall that he has always been present on this particular day. Those honourable senators who know him-and I am sure most do-will recall that he was in Canberra during the last week of sitting in 1986. I believe that he will be sadly missed by members of parliament who have come to regard him as a very close friend and a very useful and helpful person, especially to the various industries that he has represented. I just wanted to record my appreciation of his friendship and help over a long period and extend the deepest sympathy of my wife and me to his wife Judy and his family. Senator Kilgariff —And the sympathy of all senators. Senator JESSOP —Of all senators who knew him, as my colleague says. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(10.35) —I also wish to speak very shortly about Ernest Marty who, I believe, started his lobbying work in Canberra some 27 years ago. Some of us who have been here for a fairly long time recognise that 27 years is a much longer time. I recognise that he was interested in the nuclear area, the wine growing industries, as Senator Jessop has said, the coal export area and also flying. I also have a love for flying and I once flew with him from Sydney to Melbourne. These days I suppose that that would be classed as a fringe benefit. Seeing him trying to land on the wrong air strip at that time, I was able to help him land on the right one. I was very pleased to have flown with him and he is someone who I would like to say was my friend during the time that I knew him. I came to this chamber only 15 or so years ago and I used to think that lobbyists were a nuisance. Ernest helped me to change my attitude to lobbyists and I now realise that they are very helpful to members of parliament. He was certainly helpful in many areas. Ernest would come into my office, never in a too serious mood. He might have had something serious to talk about but he was always helpful and encouraging-the sort of person one likes to have in one's office, much more so than many other people I can think of. He helped me to change my mind about lobbyists. Senator Jessop said that he was here in Canberra very often with his wife Judy. He was, and they were welcome in this building. Earlier tonight I was talking to ex-Senator Peter Rae who said that he was shocked to hear about what had happened to Ernest so quickly. He said that he had met him in 1968, he knew him well and he regarded him as a friend. He remembered the time that he tried to save the air truck for Australia, instead of its going somewhere else, and he also remembered when he tried to keep the manufacture of the Victa Air Tourer in Australia. Peter Rae asked me specifically-and I do it willingly-to associate his name with my remarks. As I said, Ernest and Judy Marty have been of great help to me. Ernest was a good friend and I hope that Judy will remain so. I am sad not to see him in this building this week and I pass my condolences to Judy and to his family and I hope that somehow in the fullness of time we will all recognise just what a great person he was. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.38) —It is perhaps unusual to have a number of speakers about someone who was not a member of this place and not a person who held high national office but I would very briefly wish to associate myself with the comments made by both Senator Jessop and Senator Townley. I think that the role of a person who might be described as a lobbyist or a representative of interests is very difficult and I thought that Ernest Marty was exemplary in his approach to his work. I had very great admiration for the way he provided information; he was always utterly straightforward and honest and I formed a considerable regard for him. I merely wish to support the comments that have been made by my colleagues and also to express my sympathy to his widow for the loss of a very fine man. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(10.40) —Though much has been said about the Press in recent times, not enough has been said about those issues that are most vital to society. Too little has been said about the essential nature of the Press, about its cardinal function and about its proper place in the constitutional structure of society. Too little has been said about those rights that the community is entitled to have satisfied by its Press: Its right to all the pertinent news, its right to free and full expression of various ideas and opinions, its right to all relevant information and its right to the truth. Too little of what has been said has been made public. The Press is different in nature from other industries. The quality of steel produced, the quality of meat slaughtered, the quality of bread baked and the quality of services rendered affects the well-being and comfort of our bodies. The quality of what we read affects our minds and souls. The Press is a force bearing on our aspirations, our attitudes, our ideas and our culture-on all those things that are generally labelled the higher attributes of humanity. Given these premises, it has a character that is fundamentally distinct from most other enterprises. The major Press has as one of its functions the making of profits. That is right and proper. However, it is not the cardinal function of the Press. That is to bring a full and accurate account of the news to the public, to allow the expression of varying views, to disseminate information needed by the community and to provide a vehicle for comment and analysis. Its function as a producer of income should never usurp its cardinal role. The legislature, the judiciary and the Executive are essential parts of the constitutional structure of society. One makes the laws; one interprets them; and one puts them into operation. Ideally they provide a happy balance within which citizens and their community are afforded well-being and freedom. In England this constitutional structure evolved over the centuries. It was given formal expression in the Constitution of the United States of America. It is implied in our Constitution. In England, especially during the eighteenth century, events brought about a free Press which enhanced the liberty of the citizen. In France during 1789 the National Assembly, by Article XI of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens, proclaimed: The unrestrained communication of thoughts and opinions being one of the most precious rights of man, every citizen may speak, write, and publish freely, provided he is responsible for the abuse of this liberty in cases determined by law. In the United States during the same year the First Amendment was made to the Constitution. It reads. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Press is akin to the legislature, the judiciary and the Executive. The Press is part of that structure which determines the well-being of society, its character and the quality of its freedoms. Being part of this structure, the Press should be in balance with it, but is it? Parliaments must act within their powers as defined in the Constitution. The courts interpret that Constitution. The courts must accept the supremacy of parliaments acting within their powers. The Executive must carry out its functions according to the laws made by parliament. Parliament cannot interfere with the operation of the Executive acting within its powers. Presently there are no provisions specific to the Press guiding its operations within the constitutional balance. The worth of the Press is to be measured primarily by the quality of its service to the community. Freedom of the Press exists for the sake of the community, not of the proprietors. Otherwise its classification with the three arms of government is a nonsense. The Press ought to have prestige, privilege and powers, but in circumstances where it performs its high purpose. Liberty of the Press developed through reaction to parliamentary and Executive oppression. In the seventeenth century barbaric penalties were imposed on authors and publishers, reflecting adversely on the Executive. The Press was made subject to a licence. Master printers and apprentices were strictly limited. In 1662, the Licensing Act gave control over printing entirely to government. The Act operated with intervals until 1695. In 1712, the Stamps Act was passed. Repressive legislation persisted for an extended period. On 23 April 1763 a newspaper, the North Briton, launched a robust attack on the Executive. This occasioned the prosecution of its proprietor and editor, John Wilkes, member of parliament for Aylesbury. He won his case. Parliament, however, was adverse to its member. It voted him down 237 to 111 votes. He became a popular hero amongst the people. The English Parliament reformed the law applicable to the Press for mundane reasons. In volume 3 of his History of the English Speaking Peoples Sir Winston Churchill wrote: Parliament's decision was taken, not on any high ground of principle, but because the detailed working of the Act was causing vexation. Though liberty of the Press was born of conflicts with the Parliament and the Executive, it means more than immunity from oppressive laws and overzealous administrations. It means that the Press is free of all unwarranted restrictions, whether imposed publicly or privately. In the Tribune of 7 December 1945, George Orwell wrote of the English Press: The degree of freedom of the press existing in this country is often overrated. Technically there is great freedom but the fact that most of the press is owned by a few people operates in much the same way as a state censorship. In the same paper, on 12 January in the same year, Orwell wrote: It is only when there are large numbers of newspapers, expressing all tendencies, that there is some chance of getting at the truth. London has only twelve daily papers and they cover the whole of the south of England and penetrate as far north as Glasgow. Freedom of the Press operates for the good of all the community, not for a particular section of it. Private forces can curtail that freedom just as effectively as public ones. Giving judgment in Associated Press v. United States of America, Mr Justice Black said: Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of the freedom by private interests. A free and democratic society is dependent upon there being a happy balance between the legislature, the judiciary, the Executive and the Press. The balance is maintained by its components checking and counterchecking each other. Mr Justice Black, in his judgment, said: It would be strange indeed however if the grave concern for freedom of the press which promoted adoption of the First Amendment should be read as a command that the government was without power to protect that freedom. The First Amendment, far from providing an argument against application of the Sherman Act, here provides powerful reasons to the contrary. That Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society. Surely a command that the government itself shall not impede the free flow of ideas does not afford non-governmental combinations a refuge if they impose restraints upon that constitutionally guaranteed freedom. There is concern for jobs when enterprises within a particular industry become aggregated into fewer and fewer hands. There is concern for jobs when the control of newspapers and the print industry becomes concentrated; in addition, there is concern for the range of news, views and comments which would otherwise be published. In Australia constitutional, legal, cultural and commercial factors make the question of what, if anything, should or can be done about the Press problematic. The community truly has a fascinating, if awesome, task before it. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.47) —I wish to use the adjournment debate to commend the Australian Council for Overseas Aid on its campaign to bring the attention of the Parliament and the Government to the cutting by Australia of its overseas aid, particularly to Africa and the detrimental effect that it is having upon Africa. I advise honourable senators to observe what I thought was a visually meaningful exhibit of the Council which developed a piece of earth in the shape of Africa and invited senators and members to plant maze as a symbol of their wish to support the African need to grow crops to sustain African populations. The aid cuts to Africa which have occurred under this Government are really quite dramatic. According to the brochure distributed by the Council today, the 1986 aid budget was cut by 13 per cent overall in real terms. There might be an argument as to on what set of figures that is determined but, even on government figures, I understand, it is admitted that the overall aid cut is approximately 7 per cent in real money terms. This year aid is at its lowest level in more than 25 years. It will be 0.39 per cent of gross national product, compared with 0.46 per cent of 1985-86. This is from a government that, as you will recall, Mr President, pledged itself to increase aid in real terms. Africa, unfortunately, appears to have suffered most in these aid cuts. Aid to Kenya was cut by 64 per cent; to Tanzania it was cut by 84 per cent. The Council reminds us that not one student from an independent African country will receive the Australian Development Assistance Bureau scholarship this year to study in Australia. Aid to sub-Saharan Africa has been cut equally-I understand in the vicinity of 30 per cent. What particularly appealed to me in the campaign of the Council today was the fact that it was emphasising the need to assist food production in Africa rather than simply providing food aid. You, Mr President, and I both know of the work that has been, and is able to be, done in Africa by the Australian agricultural industry in assisting and facilitating Africans to develop their agricultural resources and provide the food that is necessary. We have seen the work that has been done by Australian aid operatives in places like Somalia in dry farming techniques and in Kenya in drilling for water-relatively small expenditures that can mean survival to communities. To have seen what can be done and then to be made aware of the very dramatic cuts that are to be made by this Australian Government can only be said to be a matter for great disappointment. In particular I want to raise tonight the dramatic position that is developing in Mozambique. The Australian Government has decided that this year our aid to Mozambique will be cut by 10.4 per cent. In regard to the environment in Mozambique, those who read the English Guardian of 20 December 1986 will have been confronted with the following expression: Widespread famine and suffering as grave as Ethiopia's at the height of the emergency is imminent in the new year among the four million Mozambiquans displaced by the South African-backed war effort which has escalated in the last two months. In equally dramatic terms on 17 October last year a leading article in the Guardian stated: The vultures, never short of work in Africa, are now gathering over Mozambique. About 30 per cent of the population face famine. What does the Australian Government do in such circumstances? It determines to cut Australia's aid to Mozambique by 10.4 per cent. The position that exists in Mozambique currently reflects a combination of drought and civil strife. Starvation and malnutrition is a chronic problem in the rural areas of Mozambique, which attracted world attention towards the end of last September but which appears to have since further deteriorated. Unconfirmed reports have indicated that an estimated 150,000 Mozambiquan refugees have sought relief in South Africa and that up to four million of the 15 million population are, as I indicated earlier, threatened with famine. Much of the deterioration has taken place in the three provinces bordering Malawi and as a result of activities by the rebels of the South African-backed Mozambique national resistance. The war has disrupted agricultural production and caused massive population movements as peasant farmers abandon their farms and go to relatively safe urban areas. In the fertile province of Zambezia there are over 270,000 displaced people. I remind you, Mr President, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) as early as 1984 drew to the attention of the Australian community by going on television the fact that the African famine was not just in Ethiopia but also and particularly in Mozambique and Burkina Fasso. Mr Hayden was aware as early as 1984 of the trend that was developing in Mozambique. What do we see? The response in the last Budget was a reduction of over 10 per cent in aid. Widespread famine and suffering as grave as Ethiopia's at the height of the emergency may be imminent, as was stated in the Guardian. I believe that this calls for an Australian Government response much better than a 10 per cent cut in aid. We may be suffering from difficult economic circumstances in this country, but let us put them in perspective when we look at parts of the world community that are actually starving. The Mozambique Government estimated that it would be able to provide just over one-third of the 715,000 tonnes of food grain that will be needed over the next 12 months, leaving a gap of about 465,500 tonnes of maize, wheat and rice to be filled. This is a dramatic plea which I bring to the Government's attention. Mr Hayden, as I said, was apparently aware of it, and I call for a positive Australian Government response to this need. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.54) —Following two days of articles in the Australian Financial Review concerning the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University, in Question Time today the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) tabled the report from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission of the review of special research centres and in particular announced the Government's decision to stop funding one of the nine special research centres, that is, the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University. The Minister made a tabling statement and urged interested senators to read the CTEC report and with it a longer appendix which she tabled at the same time. I have been able to read those documents and I wish to speak briefly about them because I am not happy with the contents and the generalised summary that the Minister gave of them during Question Time this afternoon. Last September, following the expectation that centres of excellence-that is, the special research centres-would be reviewed towards the end of the six-year period of their funding, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, through the Chairman, Mr Hudson, appointed a steering committee to conduct that review and nine assessment panels to assess the nine centres of excellence. These assessment panels were appointed in September 1986 and were required to report to the steering committee by the end of October 1986. The steering committee, considering the panel's findings, finished its report on 28 November and the Government has had it in its possession for some two and a half months. The procedure was that the panels, made up of peers of those researchers gaining the special supplementary moneys for research, would examine the work of their colleagues to see whether funding should continue. Eight of them will, as a result of the Government's decision, have continued funding but the Centre of Policy Studies will not. I believe that this decision is unsatisfactory. I cannot say that the Minister's statement in the Senate today was misplaced. She did say that there were expert panels, that there was a due process for evaluation and that there was a CTEC recommendation not to give funding to this Centre. But all of that having been said, I make it clear to the Senate that the Minister did not say that the panel that looked at the Centre of Policy Studies in fact recommended a continuing grant. That was, on a reduced basis, one-fifth of that received in the last year of funding, 1986, and nearly one-half of its original funding for the first year. The panel, four persons in number, whose names are set out in the report-Professor Groenewegen, Professor of Economics at the University of Sydney, who is the Chairman of the Panel; Professor Brennan, of the Faculty of Economics at the Australian National University; Professor Marceau, Head of Public Policy Programs at the ANU; and Mr Wallace, a reader in Economics at Flinders University-made the recommendation that there be continued funding of $100,000 in 1988, $100,000 in 1989 and $100,000 in 1990. Moreover, they recommended that the matters to which they drew attention should themselves be reviewed so that funding could in prospect be increased yet further for the triennium 1991 to 1993. This was not brought to the attention of the Senate; neither were the assessments or conclusions made by the panel and then by the steering committee. Because those assessments and conclusions are themselves highly contentious and on the face of it barely plausible and because in my view they do not directly relate to the terms of reference of this special research centre, I have a number of questions that I would like to place before the Minister. I mentioned to Senator Ryan that I would be raising this matter. Unfortunately, she is not here tonight. However, I ask the following questions of her and the Government. Why was the Centre of Policy Studies not given any right of reply on this vital assessment after six years of work? In effect, in 1986 the Centre is terms being cut out of a grant of some half a million dollars for the next triennium. Why was there no right of reply? In fact, why has no copy been given by the Government or by CTEC to the Centre of Policy Studies? I believe that, had there been such a right of reply, many of the inappropriate evaluations would have been shown to be contrary to the terms of reference of the special research funding. In fact, I am not convinced that the criteria that are set out by the panel and by the steering committee are appropriate. For example, the Minister chose to quote three accusations in the statement she made today. Firstly, she made the accusation that the Centre of Policy Studies had gained insufficient outside publication of its articles in refereed journals, despite the fact that the Centre has an enormous number of publications of its own which are seen as being of worth by many in the community and, indeed, by many of its clients, including the Economic Planning Advisory Council, the Reserve Bank of Australia, State governments, international governments such as New Zealand, and so on. Secondly, the Centre was criticised for not having developed post-graduate training or opportunities for post-graduate or post-doctoral studies. The Centre was required by the terms of the special research grants not to spend one cent of that money on post-graduate training, yet this is one of the three specific criticisms that the Minister makes for the cessation of the Centre's grant. Thirdly, the Centre is accused by the panel-and the Minister took this up today-of not having developed a sufficient database in the applied economics area, although it has been involved with tax, social security and aviation policy and many other areas of applied economic research. I would refute all three of those accusations or evaluations on the grounds that they are inappropriate. Yet no right of reply was given to this Centre and its grant has been discontinued. This leads on to a further question that must be asked. I ask it without prejudice; I ask it because all of us must examine whether or not there was a bias in the original intentions of the Government or, indeed, of CTEC in the way in which this evaluation took place. It is a well-known fact that Mr Hudson, despite his involvement with this Centre as a private person some years ago and despite his close association on a personal basis with a number of its key people, has in the last 12 months been most vehemently outspoken in his criticism of it and that those criticisms were voiced by him before this evaluation took place. It is true that Mr Hudson excused himself from the steering committee meeting in November when the panel's recommendations and findings were presented. However, informally and around the edges of that formal decision process, I ask the Minister whether she can give us some plausible guarantee that there was not undue bias and influence by a person ill-disposed towards the Centre. Similarly, I know that it is well known that members of the present Hawke Government were ill-disposed towards some of the work being undertaken by the Centre of Policy Studies. In a `Yes, Minister' style of canning a disagreeable body, does one not appoint persons who one knows will be rivals, will be seeking to be critical of a peer? Again without prejudice, the question must be asked: Were one, two, three or four of the panel members disposed to be critical of a colleague who had been given more opportunity than they themselves? I come now to some specific questions. In the middle of all that evaluation process I asked a question in Senate Estimates Committee D of the Minister for Education concerning the Centre of Policy Studies and some controversy that was then under way because of the known attitudes of the CTEC Chairman and some members of the present Government. That question was put clearly. I have before me, as it was tabled during the proceedings of that Estimates Committee meeting on 14 October, a copy of a letter from the chairperson of the Committee, Senator Margaret Reynolds, to the Minister for Education, passing on that question and asking that it be answered by the Minister before the Estimates Committee report was to come before the Senate. That was not done and to this day the question is still unanswered. I just wish to read it into the record: Has the Minister received a letter from the Executive Director of the New Zealand Business Roundtable, Mr Roger Kerr, until recently a senior NZ Treasury officer, which refers favourably to the work done for the NZ Labour Government by Professor Michael Porter of the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University? If she has, could she please table this letter before Estimates Committee D brings its report to the Senate? The reason I asked that question was not just to establish a wider clientele for the Centre's applied economic research but also to point out that even a Labor Government had highly commended as useful the applied solutions that were prepared by the Centre for the Economic Planning Advisory Council, for the Reserve Bank of Australia and for State governments. Indeed, a major undertaking published in part in the Australian last week arising from the Centre concerned tax policy, and a number of us have already begun to use option V, option T and option U as objective statements of options that are before the public in the present situation of considering tax reform. I regard the Centre as professional and as having understood its original terms of research, and in the light of that and of all these unanswered questions and the over generalisation of the Minister's statement today, I believe that there is before us the view that this amounts to a political decision which jeopardises some of the sound applied economic research resources that we have in this country. There was criticism in the public at large that of the nine centres of excellence, the special research centres, seven were related to medical research and only one related specifically to the whole area of social sciences-non-natural scientific research-faces the end of funding. When that decision is linked with more than the smell of its being based on a political predisposition to find expert reasons for canning the Centre, I find that quite unsatisfactory. Had the panel been able to say more honestly that the Centre was succeeding so well that it was getting so much private money and so many private contracts that the Commonwealth would no longer fund it because it could look after itself, that might have been more acceptable. Instead of that we have this series of half-baked criticisms that have not convinced me and I do not believe will convince a wide range, indeed even a majority, of our peers in our universities and colleges. Those of us who cry academic freedom or who wish to see a more accountable process that would ensure academic freedom should place all these questions before the Minister. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.11) —I would like to add to the comments made earlier today by my leader, Senator Chaney, and by Senator Jessop and Senator Townley about the death of our friend-certainly my friend-Ernest Marty. Ernest was aged 59, having been born in 1927. He was Czech born and American educated in Iran. He was a journalist in Pakistan on partition in 1948 at around the age of 20 or 21 years and he arrived in Australia in 1950. He worked in journalism and public relations until the early 1960s when he began what became an outstanding career in governmental and parliamentary relations or, in popular terms, lobbying. As a Sydney resident his Canberra visits, which earlier speakers spoke of, over these 26 to 27 years gave him the opportunity to indulge in his passion for flying. He became a top pilot who was very proud of his achievement of being instrument rated and so being able to commute in his own plane in all weather between Sydney and Canberra in particular. Ernest Marty was known and highly regarded by people on all sides of this Parliament because he never sought to mislead or to damage. He always looked for the positives and presented the cases that he had to present on behalf of clients in the most honest, direct and straightforward way. I have known Ernest and his wife. His wife, Judy Marty, was also his business partner and they had been in partnership for 17 years. I have known them for most of those years, particularly through our shared interest in coal, wine and mutual friends. My family and I have often enjoyed his hospitality both at his North Sydney home and his north coast retreat where he also enjoyed practising his skills as a small boat sailor. I understand that Judy Marty is determined to carry on his work and will be in Canberra maintaining his 26-year tradition. My condolences go to Judy on the loss of her husband and partner and also to his five children. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(11.14) —I would like to follow the remarks of my colleague Senator Hill in relation to the seeds for Africa display in front of the Parliament today. It provides an opportunity to draw attention to the iniquity of the cuts in the Government's aid program. The reality is that although the cuts have been of the order of 13 per cent they have been much more than that if one has regard to the fact that the Government's method of calculation has changed with the amount set aside for Third World student education now being included in the aid Budget. The percentage of gross domestic product, fixed at 0.39 per cent, is said to be the lowest in 25 years. That is simply because the figures do not go back any further than that in the Budget Papers. If we take account of the old method of calculation we see that we are down to 0.35 per cent. I regard that as disgracefully low. It is below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average and it is simply not good enough. If we have regard to the way in which other countries are operating in Africa we see that they are going in the opposite direction. Countries such as Japan, which has promised to increase aid threefold by 1990, and West Germany in particular, are now paying a great deal of attention to the African continent. They realise the benefits of trade that flow from providing development assistance to that region. By contrast, Australia has reduced its aid to sub- Saharan Africa to the extent that our current level of funding to southern Africa is $37.5m. If we look at the recent decision by the Canadian Government to allocate $500m over five years and we apply that on a per capita basis we discover that Australia should be giving $320m. In other words, we are giving about one-tenth of what we ought to give in comparison with Canada which is, roughly speaking, not much closer to Africa than Australia. Again, Canada recognises the benefits of giving aid. The problem that this causes arises from the decision of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program which reported in 1983. It was established by the previous Government. The composition of that Committee was, I think, essentially settled by the then Foreign Minister, Mr Street. It reported to this Government, which adopted the recommendation to withdraw from Africa almost entirely. We have halved our food aid as a result. We have cut back on development assistance in many areas. That was a very misguided and short-sighted decision, presumably on the basis that it is more expensive to service Africa, that our administration costs are higher, that we do not have too many missions in place in the region. If one has regard to the level of public support for overseas aid as measured by contributions to the non-government organisations, which are currently running at the level of $75m a year-allowing for inflation, this is certainly above the level in 1983-it will be seen that there has been no reduction in public support for overseas aid. Yet one sure way of reducing that support over time is reducing the humanitarian commitment. That is essentially what cuts in aid to Africa do because one does not have to be very aware of what is going on in the world to recognise that Africa is by far the most needy of continents. If Australia is dramatically reducing its level of overseas development assistance, it is clear that it is undermining the very purpose of aid giving. If it becomes simply an instrument of foreign policy, if we allocate the bulk of it to our regional neighbours irrespective of need, we are creating a cynicism in government which ultimately will be reflected in reduced community support. The Oz for Africa campaign which was run in May of last year raised $5.8m from about a quarter of a million Australian citizens. That is a very significant amount of money. In 1984-85 the Australian Government was prepared to give of the order of $25m through non-government organisations for emergency relief and another $25m in overseas development assistance in both food aid and emergency relief. That was because there was a real crisis in Africa; it was an emergency. It was short term relief aid. We know from many years experience that that is simply handout stuff. It might keep a few people alive on a short term basis; it does nothing for long term development assistance. There is no reason why Africa cannot become food self-sufficient, yet at the moment it is going backwards. I think the Organisation of African States estimates that Africa has gone from something like 86 per cent food self-sufficiency to of the order of 70 per cent at a time when its population growth is of the order of 2.8 per cent a year, which is much higher than the rate in any other region of the world. So there are increasing needs and an increasing population. Australia has an ability to provide funds. Dry land farming techniques are a particular skill that we possess. There are many regions in Africa comparable to Australia. The result of the Government's callousness in cutting aid to Africa across the board is compounding the problem. The Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) is present in the chamber tonight. I hope he was not present at the national conference in Hobart in July last year when an unequivocal commitment was given to achieving the United Nations target of providing 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product in overseas aid and in particular achieving a target of 0.55 per cent by 1990. I urge the Minister to bring to the notice of his colleagues that the Australian community will not stand by in the run-up to the next Budget and see aid cuts once again. It is an absolutely callous approach. It is not in our long term interest. It does nothing for boosting our export productivity and it overlooks the fact that something like 90 per cent of our aid is spent on the purchase of goods and services in Australia. I hope that the Government, with all its cynicism and its desire to achieve a workable economy, will realise that there are very significant benefits in increasing the level of development assistance and that now is the time to start that process. The PRESIDENT —Before I call the Minister, I remind Senator Alston that it is customary to speak from one's usual allotted seat. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(11.20) —I am obviously at the bottom of the pecking order, having got the first adjournment debate to respond to. Nevertheless, I will try very briefly to note what honourable senators brought to the attention of the chamber this evening. Senators Jessop, Townley, Chaney and Michael Baume remarked on the premature death of Mr Ernest Marty. Mr Marty was indeed a very assiduous lobbyist, well known to those of us who have been in the service of Senate committees in particular over the years. Despite a variety of references with which we may have been involved, Mr Marty quite often found himself putting a particular point of view. He was a lobbyist in the best sense of the word, as has been remarked, and he was always extremely courteous. I can still see him in King's Hall sucking quietly on his pipe in the company of his wife. I am sure that those on this side of the chamber would wish to join in the expressions of sympathy which have been conveyed to his widow. No doubt we will be able to convey those condolences personally when she resumes the role which they undertook together in relation to their lobbying business. I simply indicate on behalf of honourable senators on this side of the chamber that we join in the sentiments that have already been expressed. I thought that Senator Cooney gave a very good illustration of the need for the printed word because it was quite impossible, using the simple ear, to gather all the gems from the torrent of words that tumbled from him in his passionate defence of the Press and the need for its responsible freedom in order to help preserve the sorts of democratic traditions which we enjoy in this country. I think the Government has indicated that the marriage of dominant Press and electronic media interests in a particular area should be torn asunder and we hope that that will proceed shortly through the various processes. However, the prospect of government intervention to determine the extent of ownership of particular newspapers or magazines is something which fills me with some foreboding. I note that whilst Senator Cooney said that an awesome challenge was contained in his remarks he did not proffer any clear indication of his preferred resolution of the problems that he saw emerging. Nevertheless, having highlighted these matters I will certainly bring his speech to the notice of the Government. Senator Hill and Senator Alston brought to our attention-following the symbolic activity of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid in the area just in front of Parliament House-the cut in the aid Budget, particularly its impact on Africa. Certainly I generally prefer Senator Hill's views on Africa and Australia's response to Africa compared with perhaps those of the leadership of his Party. Nevertheless, the challenge which he issued and which was supported by Senator Alston is a very real one. There certainly needs to be a realisation that in setting certain priorities one cannot ignore the real plight of those in the African situation whom we have disabled ourselves from assisting through the decisions that have been made in the context of the Budget particularly in the last year. I believe that the challenge is too narrowly directed by those honourable senators to the Government. There is a very real obligation and challenge for us as parliamentarians to go out into the electorate and to try to convince the electorate. I can assure honourable senators that outside those who engage in supporting the symbolic activities that took place in front of Parliament House today, there is not the same sense of compassion or a realisation that it may be better morally and spiritually for us to divert money to overseas aid rather than to fill needs which Australian taxpayers see for certain domestic expenditure. I think we need to engage in that education of the general Australian population in a much more effective manner. Perhaps we will then get the political support out there to channel moneys in the way which has been suggested by those honourable senators. But I will certainly bring the honourable senators' remarks to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden. I also know, Mr President, that you would wish to aid in that particular representation, because I know that as a result of one of the recommendations of your previous committee, which you chaired with such distinction-the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence-a particular monitoring post was set up in Addis Ababa to deal with the aid situation. I think there is good will on both sides of the chamber, but we really do need political support out in the general electorate for overseas aid, at a time of decreasing domestic expenditures, as a support for the sorts of priorities that Senators Hill and Alston would like to see. Senator Teague raised a matter which was really consequential on a lot of information given by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) during Question Time in relation to the fate of the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University, which is one of the centres of excellence subjected to peer review. I am glad that Senator Teague in his remarks acknowledged that the panel which looked at that Centre was indeed composed of peers. I think it was Senator Teague's remark that the Minister, in conveying the tenor of the report, was correct, or at least not misplaced, in her representation of the tenor of that report, although apparently the panel itself did not recommend that funding be entirely ceased. He then posed certain questions for himself and also reiterated some that had been raised in the Estimates Committee hearing, and I will undertake to pass those on to the Minister. I am sure that a fuller answer will be forthcoming. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.28 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Acts Interpretation Act-Correspondence relating to extension of specified period for presentation of the following annual reports- Aboriginal Development Commission-Annual Report 1985-86. Australian Capital Territory Health Authority-Annual Report 1985-86. Australian Heritage Commission-Annual Report 1985-86. Australian National Gallery-Annual Report 1985-86. Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T.)-Annual Report 1985-86. National Museum of Australia-Annual Report 1985-86. Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 9. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 357. Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 398. Apple and Pear Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 11. Australian Capital Territory Tax (Transfers of Marketable Securities) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 390. Australian Federal Police Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 14. Australian Film, Television and Radio School Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 374, 375. Banking Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 392. Christmas Island Act-Ordinance 1987-No. 1-Lands. Companies Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 376. Currency Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 358. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 354, 361-368, 385, 388, 396. Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 3. Family Law Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 393. Fisheries Act- Fisheries Notices- No. 166-Revocation of Fisheries Notice No. 158-Prohibition relating to boats in the northern prawn fishery, dated 8 December 1986. No. 167-Prohibition relating to boats in the northern prawn fishery, dated 8 December 1986. No. 168-Revocation of Fisheries Notice No. 160-Prohibition relating to the taking of prawns in the Gulf of Carpentaria, dated 8 December 1986. No. 182-Prohibition of pelagic gillnet fishing off Northern Australia, dated 2 December 1986. Plan Management No. 12-Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions). Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 397. 1987 No. 1. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 377. Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 6. International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 359. Interstate Road Transport Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 386. Judiciary Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 383. Lands Acquisition Act- Land, etc, acquired for- Aviation purposes-Jandakot, Western Australia. Pipeline Authority purposes-South Australia. Statements (3) by the Minister, describing lands acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations- Orders 1986- No. 5-Meat Inspection (Fees) (Amendment). No. 6-Meat Inspection (Northern Territory). Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 355. Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 384. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 360, 391. National Measurement Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No 370, 399. Navigation Act- Marine Orders 1986- No. 16-Part II (Substandard ships). Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 387, 400. Overseas Students Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 378, 379. Overseas Students Charge Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 380. Patents Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 12. Pig Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 2. Postal Services Act-By-laws 1986-Postal Amendment No. 4. Public Service Act- Determinations- 1986-Nos 92, 95-104. 1987-No. 1. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 369. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Determination 1986- No. 20-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Chief Executive, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and others, dated 5 December 1986. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations made under the following Ordinances- Building, dated 28 November 1986. Health Authority, dated 22 December 1986. Mental Health, dated 19 December 1986. Liquor, dated 28 November 1986. Roads and Public Places, dated 28 November 1986. Ordinances- 1986- No. 79-Legal Practitioners (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 80-Health Authority (Amendment). No. 81-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 7). No. 82-Legal Practitioners (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 83-Magistrates Court (Amendment) (No. 4). No. 84-Commercial Arbitration. No. 85-Air Pollution (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 86-Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) (Amendment). No. 87-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 8). No. 88-Real Property (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 89-Rates and Land Tax. No. 90-Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 91-New South Wales Acts. No. 92-Interpretation (Amendment). No. 93-Imperial Acts Application. No. 94-Canberra Theatre Trust (Amendment). No. 95-National Exhibition Centre Trust (Amendment). 1987- No. 1-Nature Conservation (Amendment). No. 2-Advisory Council (Amendment). Regulations- 1986- No. 26-(Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Ordinance), No. 27-(Legal Practitioners Ordinance). No. 28-(Public Health Ordinance). Sex Discrimination Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 4, 5, 8. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the Subsidy Scheme in relation to the States, dated 15 December 1986 and 13 January 1987. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984- Directions- Nos 1 and 2, dated 14 January 1987. Nos 3-6, dated 12 December 1986. Nos 7-14, dated 15 December 1986. No. 15, dated 23 December 1986. Nos 16 and 17, dated 13 January 1987. Stevedoring Industry Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 371. Student Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 381, 382. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules- 1986-Nos 356, 372, 373, 389. 1987-Nos 7, 10. Supported Accommodation Assistance Act-Variation to the Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and- New South Wales, made on 30 June 1986, dated 7 January 1987. South Australia, made on 11 February 1986, dated 5 January 1987. Tasmania, made on 3 March 1986, dated 15 January 1987. Western Australia, made on 11 February 1986, dated 23 January 1987. Telecommunications Act- By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendments Nos 69-72, 74. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendments Nos 44, 45. Telecommunications (General) Amendment No. 49. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 394. Trade Marks Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 13. Trade Practices Act-Explanatory Statement by the Minister detailing the particulars of an export approval under sub-section 65 (3) of the Act. Trade Union Training Authority Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 395. Veterans' Entitlements Act-Instrument to vary Treatment Principals, dated 6 December 1986. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Repeal Act 1986-1 January 1987 (Gazette No. S 659, 19 December 1986) Australian Institute of Sport Act 1986-1 January 1987 (Gazette No. S 635, 11 December 1986) Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment Act 1986-Part III-1 January 1987 (Gazette No. S 653, 18 December 1986) Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986-10 December 1986 (Gazette No. S 631, 9 December 1986) Interstate Road Transport Act 1986-Provisions other than those specified in sections 1 and 2, sub-sections 36 (1) and 36 (5), section 37 and the provisions of Part V-1 January 1987 (Gazette No. S 661, 19 December 1986) Meat Inspection Act 1983-Declaration that the Act extends to the Northern Territory-15 December 1986 (Gazette No. S 644, 12 December 1986) Navigation Amendment Act 1986-1 January 1987 (Gazette No. S 665, 22 December 1986) Overseas Students Charge Amendment Act 1986-22 December 1986 (Gazette No. S 660, 19 December 1986) Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1986-Parts VII and VIII-1 January 1987 (Gazette No. S 661, 19 December 1986) Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985-Amendments to the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980-8 January 1987 (Gazette No. S 660, 19 December 1986) Student Assistance Amendment Act 1986-1 January 1987 (Gazette No. S 650, 17 December 1986) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 453) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) How much of the $260 000 allocated in the 1984/85 Budget for legal aid for Veterans has been expended and for what purposes. (2) Has the review into the needs of servicemen, ex-servicemen and their dependants for legal assistance, which was announced on 17 August 1983, been completed; if so, will the Attorney-General give details of the review and advise what, if any, changes are to be made. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Funding of provision by the Victorian Legal Aid Commission of means-test free legal assistance was approved in some repatriation legislation matters where the applicants did not meet eligibility criteria for legal aid from that Commission. However, no claim for payment of those matters was received in the 1984/85 financial year. Accordingly, the allocated amount remained unspent. (2) The review has been delayed pending consideration of the implications for legal aid generally of the recommendations of the Legal Aid Task Force. In addition, there are implications for this matter arising out of the proposed merger of the Australian Legal Aid Office and the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales. In the meantime the existing War Service Scheme will continue to operate. (Question No. 704) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Defence aware of SCD Regulation 23-6, issued by the US Department of the Air Force, Headquarters Strategic Communications Division, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, on 10 July 1981, which directs that the 1970th Communications Squadron be responsible for supervision of a Satellite Readout Station and a Satellite Communications Terminal at Woomera Air Station, Australia. (2) Is the 1970th Communications Squadron still the formal designation of this unit, and does it still have this responsibility. (3) How many personnel are employed in the Satellite Readout Station at Woomera, and how many of these are (a) US personnel (military and civilian); and (b) Australian personnel. (4) What is the relationship between 1970th Communications Squadron and 5 Defence Space Communications Squadron at Woomera Air Station. (5) Has the satellite ground station at Nurrungar recently been upgraded to make it compatible with satellites deployed by the US Space Shuttle; if so, (a) when was this upgrading begun; (b) to what extent is it completed; and (c) what new equipment was involved in this upgrading. (6) Is the Minister aware of Spacecom Regulation 23-47, issued by the US Department of the Air Force, Headquarters Space Command, Colorado, concerning Detachments 6 of 1 Space Wing, at Kapaun Air Station, Germany, which directs that the Commander of the Kapaun Station `may co-ordinate with other 1 Space Wing Units on matters relating to standardization and other related activities'. (7) Has the Commander of the Kapaun Station co-ordinated any activities with the Commander of 5 Defence Space Communications Squadron of 1 Space Wing at Woomera Air Station; if so, what is the nature of these activities. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The 1970th Communications Squadron was redesignated as the 1970th Information Systems Squadron in 1985 but on 1 November 1986 it reverted to its former title. Its mission, organization and responsibilities are at present set out in SPCD Regulation 23-2 issued by Headquarters Space Communications Division, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado on 1 May 1983. An internal reorganization at the Joint Defence Space Communications Station (JDSCS) occurred on 1 July 1986 and supervision of the Satellite Readout Station was transferred to 5 Defence Space Communications Squadron. The Satellite Communications Terminal remains the responsibility of the 1970th Communications Squadron. These changes have not yet been reflected in amended Regulations. (3) Approximately equal numbers of US and Australian personnel man the Satellite Readout Station. Nine- teen personnel were working in the Satellite Readout Station as at 23 October 1986, of whom: (a) nine were US personnel; and (b) ten were Australian personnel. (4) The 5 Defense Space Communications Squadron is responsible for the overall operation of the JDSCS. Its Commander is the Commander of JDSCS as a whole. The 1970th Communications Squadron provides specialised support to 5 Defense Space Communications Squadron. Australian serviceman are attached to both squadrons and are fully integrated into all of the Station's operations. (5) Changes to and upgrades of the equipment at the JDSCS occur from time to time but only with the prior knowledge and concurrence of the Australian Government. I am not prepared to advise details of these activities if, as in the present case, this might be to the detriment of the effectiveness of the operations of the facility. (6) Yes. (7) Questions about the activities of US military personnel serving in countries other than Australia should be directed to the US Government or the other Government concerned. However, I can say that the Commander of 5 Defence Space Communications Squadron is authorised to communicate with other US military units in the performance of the facility's mission. (Question No. 827) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspices of the Minister's Department. (2) What are the names of these authorities. (3) What appeal mechanisms, if any, exist for the general public to lodge a complaint against these authorities. (4) If it is proved that any member of staff of any of these authorities is guilty of incompetence, what action, if any, could be taken by a member of the public to sue the authority for compensation; if it is not possible to sue the authority, why is that the case. (5) How many cases concerning these authorities are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and what is the delay at present between the listing of a case and its hearing before the Tribunal. (6) If any statutory authority under the Minister's Department cannot be sued, will the Minister consider amending the relevant legislation to make this possible. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based partly on advice received from the statutory authorities within the Communications portfolio: (1) Six (2) The Australian Telecommunications Commission The Australian Postal Commission The Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) The Australian Broadcasting Corporation The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal The Special Broadcasting Service (3) Any person dissatisfied with a decision, action or service provided by a statutory authority may raise the matter through the Chief Executive or Chairman of the authority concerned and ask that action as considered appropriate be taken. Apart from that general right there are legal rights for appeal against decisions of authorities referred to in paragraph two above as set out in the following legislation: (a) the Ombudsman Act 1976; (b) the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977; (c) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (in relation to a number of specific classes of decision only); (d) the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in relation to reviews of decisions regarding access to documents; and (e) in the particular case of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, section 82 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983. (4) (See also the general comments given below in answer to part 6 of the question) Apart from the specific exemptions listed below, the authorities in the Communications portfolio can be sued for damages under any common law right of action (such as negligence) and in accordance with normal rules of law will generally be responsible for negligent or otherwise actionable acts made by staff members in the course of their employment. The Australian Telecommunications Commission Section 101 of the Telecommunications Act 1975 provides that proceedings do not lie against Telecom or its employees or contractors in respect of loss or damage suffered by a person by reason of default, delay, error or omission in relation to the provision, maintenance or operation by Telecom of a telecommunications service. The Australian Postal Commission Section 104 of the Postal Services Act 1975 provides that proceedings do not lie against Australia Post or any of its employees or contractors in respect of a loss or damage suffered by a person by reason of any default, delay, error, omission or loss in the receipt, transmission or delivery of postal articles. The Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) Section 78 of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 provides that OTC has an exemption from suit in relation to the receipt, transmission or delivery of a telecommunication. (5) As at the date the question was asked- The Australian Telecommunications Commission had 21 cases before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Of these, 16 related to claims made under the Commonwealth Employees (Compensation) Act and 5 related to requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act. The delay between listing and hearing of cases varies between 8 and 12 months. The Australian Postal Commission had 13 cases before the AAT dealing with decisions made by Australia Post concerning compensation for alleged service failures. The vast majority of AAT cases involving Australia Post do not have a hearing as they are settled at the preliminary conference. There is an average of 35 days between the day the case is listed and the date of the preliminary conference. None of the other authorities had any cases before the AAT. (6) Specific legislative provisions allow the ABT, SBS, ABC, Australia Post, Telecom and OTC to be sued in their corporate names. Under their Acts, Australia Post, OTC and Telecom have limited immunity from suit (as set out above in the answer to part 4 of the question). Apart from that specific immunity, the above authorities would be open to normal legal remedies. Equally, normal principles concerning vicarious responsibility for the actions of their employees will apply. The only other authorities established under portfolio legislation are the Broadcasting Council, which has a purely advisory function under the Broadcasting Act and the Promotions and Disciplinary Appeal Boards of Telecom and Australia Post, which have limited functions relating to internal management. It would not appear appropriate to make provision for those authorities to be sued. (Question No. 901) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 February 1986: (1) Has the Queensland Government rejected the Commonwealth Government's offer to provide funds to assist with the training of nurses at Colleges of Advanced Education (CAEs) and the retraining of nurses not currently working in the profession. (2) Did the Queensland Government advise that they planned to phase the transfer of nurse education over several years, and that during this transition period it would be necessary to maintain hospital training while CAE courses were being developed. (3) Has the Queensland Government justified its insistence that the Commonwealth Government provide full funding for nursing courses in CAEs by arguing that they will not be able to achieve significant savings during the transition period if an adequate nursing force is to be maintained. (4) Was the decision by the NSW Government to transfer all basic nurse training to CAEs been a major factor in causing a serious shortage of nurses in that State, or does a similar shortage exist in other States. (5) Has the Queensland Government suggested that the Commonwealth Government's offer of only $1500 in recurrent funds per student per year towards nurse education means that the Commonwealth Government treats nurses as second rate citizens. (6) If the Queensland Government continues to refuse to accept the Commonwealth Government's offer, will the Queensland Government have to bear the total cost of funding nurse training in hospitals, at a greater cost than if they contributed only the balance of funding for nurse education at CAEs. (7) Will nurses who train in CAEs in other States have a professional standing which is being denied by the Queensland Government to nurses in Queensland who will have to continue to be trained in hospitals. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Queensland Government has rejected the Commonwealth Government's offer of financial assistance towards the transfer of basic nurse education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education. Negotiations are continuing on the development of appropriate arrangements providing for Commonwealth assistance for the retraining of nurses not currently working in the profession. (2) No. However, this course of action would be in full accord with the decision of the Commonwealth Government for an orderly transfer phased over the period 1985-1993. (3) The Queensland Government has argued that overall savings in Queensland's hospital system arising from the transfer will be negligible. This would appear to reflect the low priority afforded to nurse training by Queensland Governments. (4) There is a shortage of nurses in most States arising in part from changed employment conditions and reduced training effort by some States for some years; the shortage has been exacerbated to some extent by the speed of the transfer in New South Wales. (5) The Queensland Government has argued that Commonwealth assistance towards the transfer of basic nurse education should be on the same basis as other tertiary education. The Commonwealth's offer of recurrent assistance is designed to assist the States to meet the costs of the transfer to Colleges of Advanced Education over the period to 1993 and is based on the States' traditional responsibility for nurse education and training. After the transfer is completed in 1993, the Commonwealth will fund basic nurse education on the same basis as the remainder of the advanced education sector is then funded after appropriate Commonwealth/State financial adjustments are made. Rather than treating nurses as second class citizens, this Government has given a commitment to assist the States and Territories in the total transfer of basic nurse education to the advanced education sector, ensuring that nurses can receive the education necessary to enable them to meet the challenges posed by changes in health care. (6) If Queensland does not accept the terms of Commonwealth assistance for the transfer of basic nurse education to the advanced education sector, the State Government will have to meet the costs of funding nurse training in hospitals as at present. Queensland will not be penalised as a result of its attitude to the transfer; that portion of Commonwealth funding for hospitals in Queensland which may be used for hospital-based training will not be changed. Nevertheless, as many of the costs associated with the transfer reflect the upgrading of nurse education which is occurring generally across Australia, most of these costs will be incurred by the State Government in due course. Upgraded hospital-based training could well be more expensive to the State than if Queensland were to contribute the balance of funding for basic nurse education at CAEs. (7) Nurses who train in CAEs in other States will have an enhanced standing, which will have been denied by the Queensland Government to nurses in Queensland who will have to continue to be trained in hospital-based courses. (Question No. 938) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: Will the Government ensure that union-controlled superannuation investments are controlled by independent fund managers who will not be subject to coercion in their investment decisions. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: My press statements of 11 June 1986 and 30 July 1986 on occupational superannuation outlined details of the Government's operational standards in respect of superannuation funds and of the supervisory arrangements for an Occupational Superannuation Commissioner (OSC) to oversight compliance with those standards. Those standards include, inter alia, a number of measures relating to the operations of funds and which will complement the responsibilities imposed on trustees under existing trustee law. The standards require trustee boards of new funds (ie funds commencing operation on or after 16 December 1985) with 200 or more members, to generally consist of equal numbers of persons nominated by the members or, where appropriate, unions on the one hand, and persons nominated by the employers or, where appropriate, employer organisations on the other. Where a management board or committee exercises effective control over the policies of a superannuation fund which commenced operations on or after 16 December 1985, similar arrangements will apply for the composition of that board or committee. In addition to equal representation, an independent trustee may also be appointed if required by employer or member/union representatives. New funds with fewer than 200 members may have equal sharing of trustee board representation as set out above, or, alternatively, an independent trustee may be appointed on agreement between the parties mentioned above. It will be a requirement that by no later than 1 July 1987, where there is a board of trustees, decisions are to be taken on the basis of a majority of no less than two-thirds, with any independent trustee not having a casting vote. The standards also provide for the investments of all eligible superannuation funds to be directed towards achieving maximum returns to members consistent with the sound management of fund assets. To that end investments are to be at arm's length. The Government has also announced that, in conjunction with key interest groups, further consideration will be given to the development and introduction of certain prudential, and disclosure and reporting requirements for superannuation funds. The Government believes that the various standards mentioned above, together with the general monitoring of the OSC, will provide important safeguards for ensuring that the investment activities of superannuation funds are performed in the best interests of their members. (Question No. 939) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) Will union-controlled superannuation have massive amounts of investment moneys which may be available for investment by union-controlled Trustee Companies. (2) What controls will be placed on Trustee Companies to ensure that the criteria for investment will be based solely on maximising returns on the funds. (3) What controls will be imposed to ensure that groups of union-controlled funds will not be used to take over or influence key industries for political purposes. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The honourable senator is referred to the answer I have provided to Question No. 938. (3) See answer to Question No. 938. It is also relevant that, as I indicated when announcing the operational standards, the question of establishment of a general limit (say 5 per cent) on the assets of a fund which may be invested in any single company, asset or person will be given further consideration in consultation with relevant interest groups. (Question No. 940) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) Do the proposed superannuation guidelines require that a member of a union should participate in a union-controlled superannuation fund. (2) Is it inevitable that those in a fund and not in a union will be bullied by threats of losing their jobs into joining a union. (3) What legislative safeguards against this deprivation of human rights will be enacted by the Government. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In the superannuation guidelines announced by the Government last December the Government indicated that industry schemes should not be restricted to union members. There is nothing in the announced operational standards that requires any employee to participate in a union-controlled fund. (2) No. See answer to (1) above. (3) See answers to (1) and (2) above. It is, of course, relevant that the Government will be introducing legislation to give effect to the operational standards. The legislation will also create a statutory position of Occupational Superannuation Commissioner to monitor the activities of superannuation funds with a view to oversighting their compliance with the operational standards. (Question No. 941) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: What assurances would an employee have that he or she would not have to go through an expensive legal process to have accumulated funds transferred to a fund of the employee's choice if a person elects to leave a union and was a member of the union scheme. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: A person leaving a union or an employer would not necessarily have to leave a union scheme. The announced superannuation standards reflect the Government's view that funds should be encouraged to allow, where possible, inwards and outwards portability of benefits. The standards provide for benefits to be held (subject to observance of the preservation requirements) in one of the following: a superannuation fund which an employee is leaving; another superannuation fund which the employee is joining, where the fund is prepare to accept a transfer payment; a section 23FB superannuation fund of the employee's choice; an approved deposit fund of the employee's choice; and a deferred annuity. Whether a fund releases a member's benefits for preservation in one of the ways listed above would be dependent on the provisions in the fund's trust deed. It is not envisaged that, in the normal course, any of these arrangements to facilitate portability would involve legal expense for the employee. (Question No. 942) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) Has the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) President, Mr Simon Crean, stated that the ACTU stands by its executive decision to use industrial action over superannuation. (2) What action will the Government take to counter such action which seems to be outside the Wages and Income accord. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The honourable senator is referred to the answer I have provided to Question No. 944. (Question No. 943) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) Have some Trade Unions indicated that they will not accept guidelines on superannuation where it prefers balanced trustees in union superannuation funds. (2) What action does the Government propose to ensure adherence to its guidelines. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In my statement of 11 June 1986 on operational standards I indicated that compliance with those standards will be a condition for eligibility for relevant taxation concessions. This would include compliance, where appropriate, with the standards relating to composition of trustees (see answer to Question No. 938). It is judged unlikely that a trade union fund would forgo tax concessions through non-compliance with standards. (2) If, in the opinion of the Occupational Superannuation Commissioner, a fund does not satisfactorily comply with the standards, including the operational standards referred to in (1) above, it will not qualify for taxation concessions. (Question No. 944) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: Does the Government agree that the weakness of its so-called superannuation guidelines will leave the Australian Council of Trade Unions free to dictate its own terms to industry, as already seen in the case of the Transport Workers' Union. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The policies announced by the Government are aimed at ensuring the establishment of soundly based superannuation arrangements for the Australian community which will be fair and equitable to employees, unions, employers and their associations. As honourable senators will be aware, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has issued guidelines setting out the conditions under which it will ratify agreements and make consent awards relating to new or improved occupational superannuation. These conditions include the requirement that employers' consent to agreements must be genuine. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has made it clear on many occasions that the Government does not support resort to industrial action in relation to negotiations relating to the implementation of superannuation agreements. The industrial disruption that has occurred over superannuation issues has been a matter of concern to the Government. Accordingly, in the current National Wage Case the Commonwealth is seeking a review of the Commission's current principle in relation to superannuation. The Commonwealth has submitted that the issue of superannuation should be addressed within the Commission by general arbitration, that superannuation should be gradually phased in over a time period, that a prospective date before which superannuation cannot be awarded should be set having regard to economic requirements, and that the Commission should address directly the issue of industrial action in pursuit of claims for superannuation. (Question No. 945) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) What investment controls does the Government intend to introduce over new union-sponsored, industry-wide funds to prevent undue concentration of investment, in particular corporations. (2) Will the Government give a commitment to prevent union-sponsored schemes holding undue equity in any one corporation. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The honourable senator is referred to the answers I have provided to Questions Nos 938 and 939. (Question No. 946) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) Do many union superannuation schemes now being forced on employers and employees, require a management fee or commission of $1 per employee per week to be paid to the union-controlled trustee companies. (2) Will the union have to account to the members for the use of those commissions. (3) What controls will be imposed on those unions to ensure that the commissions will be used solely for the benefit of the members. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its decision of 26 June 1986 decided not to impose by arbitration any occupational superannuation contributions on employers in the next two years. The Commission decided, however, to monitor and regulate agreements entered into and to assist by conciliation. A requirement of the Commission is that employer contributions should be limited to 3 per cent of ordinary time earnings, inclusive of administrative costs for fund management. The level of management fees, including those payable to any external investment manager, will be a matter for negotiation between the trustees and fund managers. The trustees will, of course, be accountable to the fund members for the operations of the fund. The announced operational standards, including those in relation to control of superannuation funds, reflect the Government's intention that investments of superannuation funds be directed towards achieving maximum returns to members consistent with the sound management of fund assets. (Question No. 948) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) What assurances can the Government give that the introduction of productivity-based schemes will be orderly, in the light of persistent statements by Australian Council of Trade Unions leaders, Mr Crean and Mr Kelty, that industrial action cannot be ruled out in the pursuit of new superannuation schemes. (2) What is the Government's reaction to Mr Kelty's statement that there is no reason why the unions should stop at 3 per cent superannuation contributions, and to his quoted question, ``why not 20 per cent?'' Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The honourable senator is referred to the answer I have provided to Question No. 944. (Question No. 949) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: Does the Government intend to by-pass Parliament by not legislating but rather using regulations to control the implementation of new superannuation schemes. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No. The Government is proceeding with the preparation of legislation to implement the operational standards for occupational superannuation schemes and the related supervisory arrangements. (Question No. 950) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: What sanctions will the Government employ to guarantee that the union movement will not pursue a course of industrial action to hasten the implementation of superannuation schemes outside of the Wages and Income Accord Mark II. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The honourable senator is referred to the answer I have provided to Question No. 944. (Question No. 1096) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 28 May 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Primary Industry's attention been drawn to reported remarks by the Victorian State Director of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), Mr Peter Barber, that farm animals are dying because of neglect by Collins Street farmers. (2) What options are available to the Federal Government, in conjunction with State Governments, to prevent cruelty to farm livestock from investors, or hobby farmers, Australia-wide, who might only visit and service their animals once a month or less. (3) What is the range of penalties for such offences of neglect and cruelty in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory and how does this compare with maximum penalties in all of the States. (4) What procedures are in place or are contemplated in areas under Commonwealth control to protect and monitor the welfare of farm animals. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In his statement to the press, Mr Barber did not refer to Collins Street farmers. He stated that, in Victoria, there are problems with the neglect of animals due to absentee farmers. This is not an uncommon problem particularly on the fringes of Melbourne and other cities and towns. The Minister for Primary Industry is aware of this problem. (2) Under the Australian Constitution responsibility for animal welfare rests with the respective State and Territory Governments. Direct Commonwealth responsibility for animal welfare and animal husbandry matters is confined to areas administered by the Commonwealth such as the Australian Capital Territory. Legislation exists in all States and the Territories dealing with the prevention of cruelty to animals, including farm animals. The Commonwealth takes a coordinating role in animal welfare through committees of the Australian Agricultural Council. Through that process model codes of practice have been and are being developed setting out standards for the humane management and handling of animals. Model codes of practice are currently being drafted to cover grazing animals. They are prepared in consultation with scientific and animal welfare groups as well as with representatives of the various farming organisations. Following endorsement by the Australian Agricultural Council it is the responsibility of the State and Territory governments to ensure distribution of the Codes of Practice to all members of the farming community. (3) The range of penalties for neglect and cruelty in the States and Territories is outlined below. Australian Capital Territory Offences of neglect and cruelty come under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance. The maximum penalty is $200 fine or six months imprisonment. Northern Territory The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act provides for a maximum penalty of $200 fine or six months imprisonment. New South Wales The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act provides for a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment, $1000 fine or both. Victoria The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act provides the following penalties: First offence $1000 fine or 3 months imprisonment Second offence $2500 fine or 6 months imprisonment Third offence $5000 fine or 12 months imprisonment Queensland The Animals Protection Act provides for a maximum penalty of $1000 fine or six months imprisonment. Western Australia The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act provides for a maximum penalty of $200 fine or six months imprisonment. South Australia The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act provides a maximum penalty for cruelty or neglect of farm animals of $10,000 or 12 months imprisonment. Tasmania The Cruelty to Animals Prevention Act provides a maximum penalty of $1000 fine or six months imprisonment. (4) Except in the administration of the Australian Capital Territory, through the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, the Commonwealth has no specific powers regarding welfare of farm animals. In areas of Commonwealth responsibility the Department of Primary Industry works actively to resolve problems and improve the welfare of animals. It has imposed standards over livestock exports and registered export abattoirs as an administrative extension of legislative powers in respect of the health of animals intended for export or slaughter. Animal welfare provisions are included in the legislation relating to abattoirs under Commonwealth jurisdictions. All export abattoirs are subject to these provisions which are contained in the Export Control Act (1982) and its associated Orders. In States and Territories where the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service is responsible for domestic meat inspection the provisions are contained within the Meat Inspection Act (1983) and its associated Orders. In general terms the animal welfare provisions of the Commonwealth legislation place responsibility for the welfare of animals directly on the management of the abattoir and cover issues such as surveillance of animals, the use and handling of dogs, stunning prior to slaughter, feeding and watering of animals and the handling of livestock. All Commonwealth meat inspection staff have been instructed that the Department expects high welfare standards to be maintained on abattoirs under their control and that they have a responsibility to take quick and effective action if they see evidence of cruelty or neglect. Procedures have been developed to allow prompt reporting of cruelty to the State or Territory Department with animal welfare responsibility for further investigation and prosecution if necessary. The Commonwealth has co-operated with the States in the preparation of Model Codes of Practice covering on-farm care and transport of livestock. The Government believes that the key to maintaining high standards of animal care lies in advising and educating the public and industry, through Codes such as these, on accept- able standards of animal husbandry. (Question No. 1112) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 30 May 1986: When will the reply to my question, which first appeared on the Notice Paper of 12 February 1986, be forthcoming (Question 805). Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The reply to Question 805 appeared in Hansard on 28 November 1986 (p. 3035). (Question No. 1124) Senator Morris asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) Have complaints ever arisen throughout Australia from Telecom subscribers who have their home and business services disconnected even after paying their accounts. (2) Will the Minister for Communications instigate an investigation process into the present system of handling alleged overdue payments in an effort to eliminate severe problems that are emerging in the community at large. (3) Will steps be taken to eliminate a serious present difficulty where if an overdue account is paid at a Telecom Business Office in an area away from the service of the subscriber, the staff of that office disdain contact with the local office to prevent disconnection. (4) Will steps be taken to ensure the public relations effort of Telecom is not damaged, or destroyed, by the practices outlined above. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based in part on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Yes. (2) Telecom is continually reviewing its payments processing systems and procedures with a view to improving customer service. The incidence of erroneous disconnection of service is minimal and does not warrant any special investigation instigated by the Minister. (3) Telecom's procedures provide that if an overdue account is paid at a Telecom Business Office, the relevant District Accounting Group is to be contacted by telephone. However, there have been occasions where customers have been disconnected where this advice has not been provided. In those cases, Telecom has taken appropriate remedial action. The scheduled automation of receipting procedures at Telecom Business Offices in the latter part of 1987 will accelerate the actual crediting of customers' accounts in Telecom's billing system. (4) In the interests of Telecom's public relations, receipting areas are regularly reminded of the procedures to be followed when overdue payments are accepted. (Question No. 1214-Amendment) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 12 June 1986: How many Scientists and Engineers are employed by the department and its instrumentalities. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Joint Coal Board 1 Scientist 9 Engineers Australian Atomic Energy Commission 210 Scientists 47 Engineers Pipeline Authority 21 Engineers Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority 42 Engineers Department of Resources and Energy Central Office 9 Scientists Division of National Mapping 2 Engineers Bureau of Mineral Resources 198 Scientists 8 Engineers (Question No. 1217) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 13 June 1986: (1) How much contract research does the CSIRO undertake for industry. (2) What action is being taken to increase the amount of contract research that the CSIRO performs for industry. (3) What incentives exist for industry to contract research out to the CSIRO. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The cost to industry for contract research performed by CSIRO on its behalf during 1985-86 was $8.471 million. CSIRO also regularly receives non-cash contributions from companies to assist in performing its research-secondment of staff, provision of facilities and equipment, and so forth. These contributions would increase this figure substantially. In addition during 1985-86 CSIRO received $41.17m from the various rural industry and other contributory fund sources. The bulk of these funds resulted from CSIRO submitting applications for funding to the various fund granting bodies which consider such applications on a competitive basis. (2) Measures undertaken by CSIRO to increase the amount of contract research performed for industry include: (a) The use of SIROTECH Ltd to help CSIRO and industry identify areas where contract research would be fruitful and to facilitate arrangements for undertaking and exploiting such research. This is reinforced by the introduction of a joint CSIRO/Manufacturing Industry Collaborative Research Program, and a Collaborative Program on Information Technology. (b) Increasing the Organisation's commitment to shorter term tactical research on problems of immediate interest to companies. (c) The introduction of a revenue retention arrangement, whereby CSIRO Divisions are permitted to retain the major portion of any revenue generated through their interaction with industry. (3) The key incentives for industry to contract research out to CSIRO are: the 150% tax concession without any minimum threshold expenditure, the range of research skills and facilities CSIRO can draw upon, and the wide variety of contract arrangements being negotiated with industry following the creation of SIROTECH. (Question No. 1222) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 13 June 1986: (1) What is the number of staff currently employed by CSIRONET. (2) What is the expected expenditure by CSIRONET in the financial year 1985-86. (3) What proportion of that expenditure is set aside for the purchase, maintenance, or running costs of capital equipment. (4) What is the total annual cost, including lease cost, to the Organisation of the operation of the CYBER 205 super computer. (5) What is the expected financial return from the CYBER 205's operation for 1985-86. (6) How many hours per week is the CYBER 205 in operation. (7) How many hours or part thereof is the CYBER 205 charged at full commercial rates. (8) How many hours per week are charged at discounted rates. (9) What are the eligibility criteria for access to the CYBER 205 super computer at discounted rates. (10) What attempts has CSIRONET made to increase industry use of the CYBER 205 super computer. (11) Why has maximum utilisation of the CYBER 205 super computer not been achieved. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) CSIRONET currently employs 149 people, comprising 135 permanent staff and 14 casual staff. (2) $17,689,680. (3) 72%. (4) Total direct cost, including lease costs, of the CYBER 205 is: $ Staff Costs... 235,000 Hardware, Software and maintenance... 2,615,000 2,850,000 Lease costs have not ceased since CSIRO entered into an arrangement, with the approval of the Minister for Science, to purchase the CYBER 205 (for $3.7m) with effect from the commencement of 1987. The purchase arrangements are, however, spread over two years and CSIRO will be amortizing the capital outlay involved in future costings of machine time. (5) The financial return from the CYBER 205 for 1985-86 was: $ CSIRO... 695,000 Bureau of Meteorology... 244,300 Materials Research Laboratory, Defence Science and Technology Office... 35,200 Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics... 4,400 Department of Transport... 3,600 Department of Defence, Navy... 2,900 Industry... 23,600 1,009,000 (6) The CYBER 205 is scheduled to be in operation for 168 hours per week. After allowing for ``down-time'' associated with operating system maintenance, software and user support, the CYBER 205 is available to the user community for 120 equivalent machine hours per week. (7) Earnings for the CYBER 205 at non discounted rates in 1985-86 were: 1st and 2nd quarter-0.5 hours/week 3rd quarter-2.0 hours/week 4th quarter-4.5 hours/week These figures exclude time made available to industry for demonstration and ``benchmarking'' purposes. CSIRONET staff are making every effort to increase commercial utilisation and the above increasing trend reflects these efforts. (8) At the beginning of 1986 CSIRO awarded some $2 million of CYBER 205 resources in grants to researchers, principally in CSIRO, the universities and the Bureau of Meteorology, but also in the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics, the Materials Research Laboratory in the Defence Science and Technology Office and the State Electricity Commission, Victoria. This amounted to some 50-60 equivalent hours per week. In addition to this, CSIRONET offered the Bureau of Meteorology a significant discount for CYBER 205 processing during January to June, 1986, when the machine was not expected to be fully utilised. This discounted usage amounted to about 10 hours per week. For the 1986-87 financial year CSIRONET has offered the Bureau of Meteorology an arrangement involving a 30% discount on CYBER 205 processing, which should amount to about 7 machine hours per week. (9) The eligibility criteria for the grants established by the CSIRO Executive were based on the quality of the research involved and the extent to which the computing required the power of the CYBER 205. This scheme has been discontinued with existing grants ending in January 1987. All universities were offered the opportunity to buy time on the CYBER 205 under the same conditions as CSIRO divisions. Although little response was received, one university has negotiated an agreement involving a significant amount of CYBER 205 processing. (10) Of the responses received when CSIRONET advertised, in 1984, for expressions of interest from industry for joint development of super computing applications, only one has developed into a successful arrangement whilst another potential user is still developing suitable software. The agreement involves a South Australian company developing CYBER 205 code for fluid dynamics calculations. More recently, CSIRONET has contacted a number of companies who expressed interest in the use of the CYBER 205. However delays of 3 to 12 months are to be expected before their CYBER 205 usage becomes significant. CSIRONET has arranged lectures to special interest groups of the Australian Computer Society and The Australian Mathematical Society as well as visits to government departments to promote the CYBER 205. During the last six months CSIRO and CSIRONET have explored actively a wide range of possible 205 applications. There have been discussions with the Chairmen of the ARGS, the Tertiary Education Commission and University Vice Chancellors and an expansion in CSIRONET's marketing effort. (11) CSIRO and overseas experience indicates that there are great difficulties in operating super computers in a total cost recovery mode. It would seem that the more effective course is adoption of a national facility structure, with adequate infrastructure and support and differential charging rates for CSIRO and University users on the one hand and a higher commercial rate for industry users on the other. In technologically advanced countries, industry has embraced the super computer technology as an invaluable design tool. However, in Australia industry is yet to see its potential. If industry is to make significant use of the CYBER 205 it will need considerable encouragement and expert technical support. (Question No. 1231) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Does the Government have any plans to remedy current deficiencies in the law relating to computer crime; if not, will the Government give urgent attention to this matter before computer crime reaches the billion dollar proportions being experienced in the United States. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government is currently examining the ability of Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory criminal laws to adequately cover computer-related crime and considering the need for new provisions and amendments to existing provisions to remedy deficiencies in the context of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. At their next meeting in February 1987 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General will consider a report by a Working Party of officials on computer-related crime. I will keep the honourable senator informed of developments in relation to computer-related crime. (Question No. 1233) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What instructions were issued by the Attorney-General in relation to the apprehension and extradition of Robert Trimbole in 1986. (2) To whom were those instructions directed. (3) On what date were those instructions issued. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) The question of the location and apprehension of Trimbole is a matter for authorities responsible to the Special Minister of State. My Department would only commence the process of extradition following receipt of information from those authorities. The honourable senator may however be assured that if Trimbole is located overseas action to secure his extradition to Australia will be given the highest priority. (Question No. 1252) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Is membership of Ausflag tax deductible? (2) Are donations given to Ausflag tax deductible? (3) Has any funding been given to Ausflag over the last 3 years and, if so, how much has been allocated and under what Ministry was it given and for what purpose was it given in a year by year break down. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No. (3) My Department has canvassed the funding of all departments and agencies. I am informed that no funds have been allocated to Ausflag within the last 3 years. (Question No. 1256) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What action has been or will be taken to implement Mr Costigan's recommendation that the Tax Department investigate Reserve Bank and private bank records for evidence of the large scale unpaid company and personal tax which occurred at this time. (2) Will this information be used to follow the money trail of the proponents of organised crime. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Mr Costigan did recommend the establishment of a Taxation Investigation Tribunal (paragraph 10.025) and a Taxation investigation officer (paragraph 10.026). Mr Costigan has subsequently proposed, in a private capacity, that an Inquiry be set up to discover the extent of money laundering involved in overseas transactions. In respect of those recommendations and the subsequent views of Mr Costigan the Government's position is that it supports the investigation of the taxation affairs of criminals. In recommending these new bodies, the Royal Commission expressed concern regarding insignificant penalties for non-compliance with requests for information and the use of the defence of self-incrimination in respect of failing to provide information. These matters were addressed in the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 1984 passed prior to the receipt of the Commission's Final Report. The proposed new bodies were therefore considered unnecessary in that they would duplicate work of existing agencies including the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), the Australian Federal Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the National Crime Authority. It is appropriate to mention however that the ATO does, as part of its continuing responsibilities for the administration of the taxation legislation, have access to Reserve Bank and private bank records, including for the purposes of assessing unpaid company and personal tax. (2) The Government recently announced a comprehensive package of legislation to attack the proceeds of crime which is to be introduced in the Autumn Sitting this year. That legislation will include measures designed to follow the money trail of organised criminals, including drug-traffickers. (Question No. 1264) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: What was the amount of overseas borrowings by each State and Territory Government and what was the amount of overseas borrowings by statutory authorities in each State and Territory at the end of June 1986, or June 1985, if figures are not available for 1986. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Under the Financial Agreement, 1927, State Governments do not generally undertake borrowings on their own behalf. The Loan Council approves annual borrowing programs for the States while the Northern Territory also has an approved annual borrowing program analagous to those for the States. Borrowings under these programs are undertaken by the Commonwealth on behalf of the States and the Territory and for many years now only domestic debt raised by the Commonwealth has been allocated for these purposes. In the case of State semi-government authorities, however, since 1978-79 the Loan Council has approved some overseas borrowings. From 1980-81 a maximum aggregate amount of new money overseas borrowings, or `indicative ceiling', has been set with the distribution among the States being determined by the States themselves. For 1985-86 and 1986-87 the indicative ceiling has been 22 per cent of the total approved new money global borrowing limit. Refinancing or conversion of existing overseas debt of State semi-government authorities may also be undertaken overseas. It is anticipated that the Northern Territory will undertake its first overseas borrowing this financial year. Overseas borrowings by State semi-government authorities for 1984-85, 1985-86 and indicative ceilings for new money borrowings in 1986-87 are set out in the following table. OVERSEAS BORROWINGS BY STATE SEMI-GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES, 1984-85, 1985-86 AND OVERSEAS BORROWING CEILINGS, 1986-87 ($ million) N.S.W. Vic. Qld W.A. S.A. Tas. Total 1984-85 New Money 693.4 631.4 288.0 158.1 146.0 43.4 1,960.3 Refinancing . . 79.9 . . . . 40.0 . . 119.9 Total 693.4 711.3 288.0 158.1 186.0 43.4 2,080.2 1985-86 New Money 406.0 500.0 315.0 155.0 95.0 45.3 1,516.3 Refinancing 168.8 145.1 212.0 9.9 350.7 . . 886.4 Total 574.8 645.1 527.0 164.9 445.7 45.3 2,402.7 1986-87 New Money ceiling 406.0 349.0 315.0 172.0 86.0 46.0 1,374.0 Refinancing 77.0 71.5 . . 14.0 123.9 1.1 287.5 Total 483.0 420.5 315.0 186.0 209.9 47.1 1,661.5 (Question No. 1290) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: 1. What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since 5 March 1983. 2. What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1. Following transfers of functions to the Department from other Departments and reviews of functions within the Department, the following positions were created in substitution for positions then withdrawn or duties varied: (a) General Manager, ACT Forests (Level 1) created; Director, ACT Forests (Science 4), duties varied. (b) Executive Director, Canberra Development Board (Level 2) created; Executive Director (Level 1), Canberra Development Board, withdrawn. (c) First Assistant Secretary, Transport & Works (Level 4) created; First Assistant Secretary, Transport & Works (Level 3), withdrawn. (d) General Manager, Technical Services (Level 2), created; Assistant Secretary, Technical Services (Level 1), withdrawn. 2. The dates of the changes were as follows: (a) 29.2.84; (b) 14.6.85; (c) and (d) 5.2.86. (Question No. 1329) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Would the Minister for Primary Industry provide an up to date list of A and B class zoos licensed to operate in Australia. (2) Would the Minister also provide a definitive statement of the numbers and species of animals, including birds, kept in A and B class zoos as at July 1986. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry's reply was printed in Hansard at page 2203 on 13 November 1986. The answer to Question 1 does not reflect recent approvals and cancellations of Victorian circus licences. Below is a current list (as at 27 November 1986) of licensed circus premises in Victoria: Ashton's Circus Circus Variete D Freeman's Miniature Circus RG Bill's Circus (Question No. 1334) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) What specific steps are being taken to strengthen the Bureau of Meteorology's ``severe weather warning system''. (2) What methodology is used to establish how levels of increased funding could reduce damage caused by- (a) cyclones; (b) bushfires; (c) floods; and (d) severe storms. (3) What is the estimated reduction in damage caused by each of the above as a result of the expenditure outlay in the 1986-87 Budget, using this methodology. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Two specific major initiatives are underway to improve the Bureau's warning services: (a) a program of progressive re-equipment of the basic national meteorological observation, communications and data processing systems which provide the common foundation on which all the Bureau's services, including the severe weather and flood warning services, are built. Following more than a decade during which the Bureau's annual capital expenditure was held at around the $1m level, the re-equipment program is now proceeding vigorously on the basis of a capital allocation of $5.4m in the current year. Some particular initiatives in the general re-equipment program that can be expected to contribute significantly to improvement of the warning services (with 1986-87 capital funding in brackets) include: replacement of the obsolete weather watch radar at Cairns ($385,000) replacement of remote island automatic weather stations off the tropical coast ($230,000) installation of two stations (Perth and Melbourne) of an eventual three-station national network for reception and processing of high resolution meteorological satellite data ($400,000) installation of automated facilities for data processing and forecast and warning dissemination in Darwin and Perth ($1,270,000) and extension of existing facilities at Brisbane and Sydney ($120,000) (b) a program of specific upgrading and modernisation of the four major warning services involving provision of specialist warning staff and specialised warning facilities. A sum of $300,000 has been allocated for this purpose in 1986-87 for a number of specific initiatives including: meteorological instrumentation of fishing vessels in the Gulf of Carpentaria to assist with tropical cyclone tracking ($10,000) installation of lighting detection systems to improve the fire weather warning service in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales ($30,000) provision of facilities for relay of weather watch radar data from a number of tropical coastal radars to the Tropical Cyclone Warning Centres ($107,000) provision of an automated data collection system to improve flood warning on the Derwent River ($10,000) initiation of pilot flash flood warning systems for the Adelaide foothills ($50,000) and high priority areas in Queensland and New South Wales provision of microcomputers for flood warning system development in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. (2) The development and operation of an efficient, effective warning system involves consideration of a wide range of factors such as: the temporal and spatial frequency of occurrence of phenomenon for which the warning service is required the population density and the vulnerability of the communities and facilities involved the potential for damage reduction in terms of warning lead times, prediction accuracy and so on the capacity of various systems and technologies for predicting and or locating the phenomenon involved the role of the various levels of Government and other organisations in communicating the warning information and initiating counter disaster preparedness measures, and many others. Extensive research has been undertaken in Australia and overseas into the design of effective warning systems but there is no simple universal methodology available. Decisions on how particular levels of funding can be used most effectively are based heavily on professional judgement of the relative importance of various factors such as those listed above. Each improvement in the warning system increases the reliability of the warning service and reduces the risk of system failure. Quite apart from considerations of the prevention of loss of life, benefit/cost studies in Australia and overseas suggest that over a period of years: at least 10-20%, and in some areas as much as 50%, of fire, cyclone, severe storm and flood damage is avoidable given an effective warning system with total annual damage of the order of $500m (as much as $2,000m in a bad year) and the present relatively unsophisticated warning system, further reduction in damage to the extent of at least $50m per annum should be possible with an upgraded system given that the additional resource requirement to provide a modern warning service of a level of sophistication similar to that of comparable overseas countries is of the order of $2.5m per annum, benefit cost ratios of at least 20 to 1 can be expected. (3) It is not possible to associate a specific damage reduction figure with the particular items of expenditure in 1986-87. It could be that the benefit from an improved warning resulting from just one item of 1986-87 expenditure will more than repay the complete five-year cost of the upgrading program within the first year. Alternatively it could be some years before the full benefits are felt. Averaging over a period of years and applying a single simple but conservative benefit cost ratio of 10 to 1 would suggest annual savings of the order of $1.2m for 1986-87 investment in the cyclone warning system, $0.3m for the fire warning system and $1.5m for the flood warning system. (Question No. 1344) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) Can the Minister for Primary Industry inform the Senate of the number of agricultural export transactions carried out by the United States in the past 24 months which have relied on subsidies from the US Treasury (such as in the export enhancement program) to secure contracts. (2) Can the Minister identify the commodities involved in each transaction, the market in which that commodity was disposed of, the value of each transaction, the amount of subsidy provided by the American Government in each instance, and how much the eventual transaction by the Americans undercut prevailing world prices. (3) What was Australia's share, in each case, of that particular commodity market prior to American subsidised exports and how much does the Government estimate these subsidised exports depressed world prices. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided an answer to the honourable senator's question. [Due to the length of the answer, it will not be published in Hansard. However, copies are available from the Senate Table Office.] (Question No. 1354) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Is Australia a party to any of the following international conventions- (a) Rome (Neighbouring Rights) Convention, 1961; (b) Brussels (Satellites) Convention, 1974; or (c) Madrid (Double Taxation) Convention 1979; If not, is Australia currently giving any consideration to becoming a party to any of these Conventions. (2) Does Australia's apparent failure to become a party to any of these Conventions mean that Australian artists, authors or performers have lesser rights and protections under international copyright conventions than those accorded to similar people in Nations which have become parties to the Conventions. (3) Is there any particular reason or reasons why Australia has so far declined to become a party to each or any of the Conventions in question. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) Australia has not acceded to the Rome Convention. The issue of performers' protection is currently being considered by the Copyright Law Review Committee. The Committee hopes to complete its report on this reference by the end of this year or early in 1987. Consideration of Australia's accession to the Rome Convention will be made in the light of the Committee's Report. (b) Australia has not acceded to the Brussels Convention. The question of accession to the Convention is a matter for which my colleague, the Minister for Communications, has primary responsibility. He advises that the question is kept under periodic review. (c) Australia has not acceded to the Madrid Convention. The Government is not, at this stage, convinced that accession to the Convention is justified. (2) & (3). Rome Convention Adoption of the Rome Convention would result in certain protections for performers beyond those which are presently available under Australian law. As indicated above, the issue of performers' protection, including the possible adoption of the Rome Convention, is presently being examined by the Copyright Law Review Committee. Brussels Convention The Brussels Convention does not establish copyright in programme-carrying satellite signals. It merely requires member States to prevent piracy of such signals made from one country by distributors in another country. (In this context `piracy' means unauthorised interception of the signal and subsequent broadcast of the programmes received.) As a result of Australia's size and geographical isolation, there is no problem of piracy in Australia of signals from other countries. The risk of piracy in other countries of Australian signals is very small, compared with the position in Continental Europe, or the Americas, for example. Further, there are only 11 members of the Convention, of which one is the U.S., and 3 only are from Europe. None of our near neighbours is a member. Madrid Convention That Australia has not acceded to the Madrid Convention does not mean that Australian artists, authors or performers are disadvantaged. The treaty is not yet in force as there has been accession by less than the required 10 States. Only 4 countries-Egypt, India, Iraq and Czechoslovakia-have ratified the Convention. In any event, there are strong arguments that the existing bilateral double taxation agreements, together with the existing unilateral provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, provide a more precise and efficient means of eliminating the problem of double taxation. In this context, the number of Australia's bilateral double taxation agreements is growing rapidly and already covers Australia's major trading partners. (Question No. 1364) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: What are the reasons for your Department's failure to answer my Question on Notice number 805 dated 11 February 1986 and my supplementary Question on Notice number 1112 dated 29 May 1986. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Attorney-General's portfolio includes a wide range of statutory authorities and considerable research was needed to provide the information requested. A reply to Question 805 appeared in Hansard on 28 November 1986 (p. 3035). (Question No. 1375) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) What has been the extent of the Australian Government's effort to establish whether or not Dr Waldheim is in fact a war criminal, or to establish that he was not. (2) Are intelligence efforts regarding Dr Waldheim still being undertaken by the Australian Government in regard to Dr Waldheim's wartime activities between 1939 and 1945. (3) Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs' attention been drawn to claims made by a British Labour Party member of Parliament, Mr Greville Jenner, that Dr Waldheim interrogated or authorised the interrogation of an Australian Prisoner of War, Private Leo Rice of the Special Boat Squadron; if so, what information is now available to the Australian Government on (a) the result of the investigation; and (b) the fate of Private Rice. (4) Should President Waldheim seek to visit Australia now or at any time in the future, will he be given the right of entry to this country. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In June 1986 the Government established a Review of Material Relating to the Entry of Suspected War Criminals into Australia. The alleged wartime activities of Dr Waldheim do not, however, come within the ambit of the Review. (2) It is the long-standing practice of the Australian Government not to provide information which would confirm or deny speculation on security and intelligence matters. (3) I am aware of the claims made by Mr Janner. My Department has been advised by the British authorities that they have no evidence in their records of criminal activity on the part of Dr Waldheim in relation to Private Rice. Private Rice had been posted missing presumed dead. (4) Australia maintains friendly relations with Austria. Dr Waldheim was democratically elected by an absolute majority in the June 1986 Presidential election run-off. The allegations against him have not been tested under any legal process. In Australia it is presumed that a person is innocent unless proven guilty. In these circumstances, the usual entry considerations would apply should it be proposed that Dr Waldheim visit Australia. (Question No. 1387) Senator Siddons asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1986: (1) Can the Government give an assurance that the foreign investment guidelines will not be further weakened. (2) Will the Foreign Investment Review Board be kept intact and operative. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) & (2) As I announced in July 1986, the Government will continue to monitor the impact of foreign investment policy and will make further changes as and when appropriate. Over the past two years, the policy has undergone significant relaxations. The changes are intended to facilitate further worthwhile foreign direct investment in Australia and have involved both a liberalisation of the foreign investment policy criteria and a streamlining of procedures. The honourable senator can be assured that any further changes to the policy would be made with the best interests of the Australian community in mind. There are no plans to abolish the Foreign Investment Review Board. (Question No. 1388) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1986: Has any funding provided by the Federal Government for specific purposes not been taken up by the Queensland Government, if so, will the Treasurer supply details. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: A series of questions in similar terms addressed to all Ministers was asked in the House of Representatives on 6 September 1983 by Mr Wells MP in relation to Queensland in the period from December 1972 to August 1983 (House of Representatives Questions Nos 420 to 447). I have nothing to add in respect of that period. In respect of the period from September 1983, I have been advised that the following are payments which have been offered to Queensland and for which the time for acceptance has passed without being taken up at least in part by the State. On 23 September 1985 the Commonwealth Government approved a $150 million assistance package for the Queensland sugar industry. This consisted of funding for price support, industry adjustment and research. The Queensland Government did not take up the offer as they refused to participate in a $1 for $2 funding arrangement for price support as required by the Commonwealth. A further offer of $100 million was made by the Commonwealth Government in April 1986. This was accepted by the Queensland Government. Under the States Grants (Paramedical) Scheme, which was incorporated into the Home and Community Care Program on 1 July 1985, all States were asked to participate in the scheme and attract Commonwealth matching funds. Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania took up the offer. The Queensland Government did not participate. (Question No. 1396) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) Has the attention of the Minister for Trade been drawn to a report in the Australian Financial Review of 27 August 1986 which indicates Peko-Wallsend's three partners in the Robe River project, Mitsui, Sumitomo and Nippon Steel, are unhappy with the way Peko's industrial relations tactics have been handled. (2) What is the potential damage to two-way trade with Japan in economic and employment terms caused by the intransigent attitude of the Peko-Wallsend company towards basic industrial relations, given that the Japanese, who have a combined equity of 45.5 per cent in Robe River, have clearly stated they want the current industrial dispute resolved as soon as possible, within established institutions and with close co-operation with the West Australian Government. (3) What measures are available to the Federal Government to (a) intervene in the Robe River dispute; and (b) provide assurance to the Japanese Government and industrialists in that country that the stand of the Peko-Wallsend management is not the forerunner of similar attempts by Australian company managements to destroy the established conciliation and arbitration system in Australia. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Any potential damage to our iron ore trade with Japan arising from the attitude of Peko-Wallsend towards industrial relations will hopefully not spread to the rest of the iron ore industry. What is at risk is Robe River's iron ore exports to Japan which provide the bulk of Robe River's earnings. Any diminution in those exports could affect adversely the employment base of the Robe River project. More generally, the unnecessarily and deliberately provocative industrial disruption engineered by Peko-Wallsend at Robe River has wider national ramifications insofar as it compromises Australia's recently successful efforts to project an improved international image as a reliable and competitive supplier. This is particularly important in the context of Australia's current balance of payments difficulties and in terms of the future relationship with our major trading partner, Japan. (3a) The principal concern of the Federal Government, in association with the Western Australian Government, is to encourage a negotiated settlement within the established industrial relations framework in Western Australia, which would address constructively the issues of employment, maintenance of export revenues and stabilisation of supplies to our overseas customers. Consistent with that objective, the Federal Government sought, and was granted, leave to intervene in current proceedings regarding Robe River in the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. These proceedings involve an application by Peko-Wallsend to secure federal award coverage for Robe River operations. A formal dispute has been found by the Conciliation and arbitration Commission (this is the first step in these proceedings). However that finding is presently subject to appeal by the mining unions and determination of federal award coverage has been deferred pending resolution of that appeal. (3b) The Government is not in a position to give assurances about how individual companies may act on industrial relations issues. The Japanese Government and industry are aware, nevertheless, that the overwhelming majority of Australian companies do not subscribe to the Peko-Wallsend confrontational approach to industrial relations issues. The Government also remains firmly opposed to the irresponsible, unproductive and economically debilitating industrial relations policies adopted by the Robe River management. (Question No. 1409) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) Is West Germany one of the few Western European countries which has not entered into a reciprocal arrangement with Australia and other countries for recognition of charging of telephone calls either by way of `collect' charge or international telephone credit cards. (2) What are the reasons for the lack of an arrangement with West Germany and are further discussions scheduled with that Government; if so, when is it expected that a suitable arrangement will be able to be concluded. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on information provided by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission: (1) The Federal Republic of Germany does not currently provide an international collect or credit card telephone service, having withdrawn the service for calls to the Federal Republic of Germany in June 1981 and for calls from the Federal Republic of Germany in November 1983. The Federal Republic of Germany's decision to withdraw this service category is believed to have been based on its experience of difficulty in collecting charges from German subscribers, unacceptable financial losses associated with the expense of handling collect calls, the potential for fraudulent use of the service and the high level of automation of the telephone service which enables callers to use a short ISD ``ring-me-back'' call. (2) In the circumstances, there is little likelihood that a collect or credit card service with the Federal Republic of Germany will be reinstituted. However, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) is exploring the possibility of an alternative arrangement which would make available to Australians in the Federal Republic of Germany a similar service, and negotiations with the Federal Republic of Germany are scheduled to commence shortly. (Question No. 1414) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) Were senior departmental public servants to be regarded as having equivalent military rank on the establishment of a single Department of Defence. (2) Were these equivalent military ranks as follows: Assistant Secretaries-one star (i.e. Brigadier); First Assistant Secretaries-two star (i.e. Major-General); Deputy Secretaries-three star (i.e. Lieutenant-General). (3) On what basis were these relativities established. (4) (a) How many ``three star'' Defence Department public servants are there now; (b) how many were there ten years ago; (c) how many serving ``three star'' professional service officers are there; (d) how many were there ten years ago. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The question of relativities between military ranks and public service classifications was addressed following the establishment of a single Department of Defence. The conclusion was reached that it is neither possible nor desirable to set fixed inflexible relativities between military ranks and public service classifications. It was also determined that the status of a position (be it military or civilian) and the authority of its occupant, derive primarily from its place in the organisational framework and not from the rank or classification of its occupant. (2) Not applicable (refer to answer above). (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) See above. There are three Deputy Secretaries now in the Defence Department and seven other officers at SES level 5 or 6 who are responsible for particular parts of the organisation-Chief of Capital Procurement, Chief of Defence Production, Chief Defence Scientist, Director Defence Signals Division, Director Joint Intelligence Organisation and Deputy Chief Defence Scientist. (b) Ten years ago there were three Deputy Secretaries in the Department and three other officers at SES level 5 or 6-Chief Defence Scientist, Chief of Supply and Support and Deputy Chief Defence Scientist. Note: The increase in numbers over the ten year period has resulted from the integration of the former Department of Defence Support in 1984 and the upgrading in 1986 of the two positions heading the intelligence agencies following the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. (c) There are currently four serving ``three star'' officers, namely: The Chief of Naval Staff. The Chief of the General Staff. The Chief of the Air Staff. Vice Chief of the Defence Force. Note: The position of Vice Chief of the Defence Force was introduced in 1986 to strengthen the Headquarters Australian Defence Force organisation particularly in the area of Defence capability and force structure planning. (d) Ten years ago there were three serving ``three star'' officers, namely: The Chief of Naval Staff. The Chief of the General Staff. The Chief of the Air Staff. (Question No. 1418) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 31 October 1986: In relation to the Report of the Committee of Review on Offsets and the section on Defence Offsets involving co-production for the most recent 5 year period for which data is readily available what is: (1) The total value of such offsets (ie, for which the foreign supplier has made a firm order with an element of Australia's Defence-related industry). (2) For each firm order placed under such offsets, and of value more that $A1m, what is: (a) The name of the overseas supplier; (b) The names of the Australian prime contractors and major contractors if any; (c) The equipment into which Australian parts will be incorporated; and (d) The nature of the Australian parts being incorporated. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Information involving a detailed breakdown of co-production activities is not readily available. The following data covers all Defence offsets orders, including co-production, placed on Australian industry for the period 1980-85 on the Australian Industry Involvement (AII) Data Base. (1) The total value of offsets work placed in Australia over the period 1980-85 was $A385m. (2) With regard to firm orders placed in Australia valued at $1m or over, available information is as follows: (a) The names of overseas suppliers listed by country of origin is attached at Table 1. (b) The names of Australian prime contractors and sub-contractors is attached at Table 2. (c) and (d) Data involving equipment into which Australian parts will be incorporated and the nature of the parts being incorporated is not readily available. TABLE 1 NAMES OF OVERSEAS SUPPLIERS-OFFSETS $A1M AND OVER Overseas Supplier Division Country of Origin Atlantas Flight Research Inc CAN Litton Systems Inc Aero Products CAN AEG Telefunken FRG Bruggeman and Brand KG Machinery FRG Daimler Benz FRG Krupp Atlas-Elektronik Fried Krupp GMBH FRG Motoren-Und Turbinen-Union FRG Aerospatiale Aircraft FRN Euromissile FRN LMT Radio Professionelle FRN Matra Manhurin Defence FRN Matra SA Military Sales FRN Soc. Surgerienne/Const. Mech FRN Societe ECA FRN Italtel ITALY Misar Spa Sede Sociable ITALY SNIA DPD ITALY Telettra ITALY Komatsu JAPAN Shin Nippon Koki Company (SNK) Machinery Sales JAPAN Toshiba Machine Company JAPAN Hollandse-Signaal Apparaten NETH Schottel-Nederland BV NETH AB Bofors Ordnance SWED FFV Ordnance SWED British Aerospace PLC Dynamics Group UK Landrover Ltd (UK) UK Marconi Company Radar Systems/ Underwater Systems UK Plessey PLC UK Racal Group UK Schulumberger Electronics (UK) Solartron Simulation UK Singer Company Link UK Thorn Group UK Advanced Development & Eng Centre USA Andrew Corporation USA Bendix Corporation Flight Systems USA Burtek USA Dalmo Victor Operations Bell Aerospace Textron USA Emerson Electric Company Electronics & Space USA FMC Corporation Northern Ordnance USA Ford Aerospace & Communication Aeronutronic USA Garrett Corporation Engine Systems USA General Electric Armament & Electrical/Electric USA & Laser/Aerospace/Aircraft USA Equipment/Aircraft Engines USA Harris Corporation Government Support Systems USA Honeywell Tampa USA Hughes Aircraft Company USA Hydronautics Inc USA Intergraph Corporation USA International Laser Systems Military Systems USA ISC Technologies International USA Kaiser Aerospace & Electronics Electronics USA Litton Systems Inc Aero Products USA Lockheed Corporation USA Mack Incorp USA Magnavox Overseas Ltd Marine Systems USA McDonnell Douglas Corporation Astronautics/Aircraft USA Northrop Corporation Aircraft USA Raytheon Company Equipment/Missile Systems USA RCA Corporation Govt Communication Systems USA Rockwell Corporation USA Rolm Corporation Computer USA Sanders Associates Inc Surveillance Systems USA Singer Company Singer Link USA Sperry Corporation Flight Systems USA Teletype Corp USA Texas Instruments Inc Equipment USA Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation USA United Technologies Corporation Sikorsky Aircraft USA Westinghouse Electric Corporation USA TABLE 2 NAMES OF AUSTRALIAN CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS-WORK VALUED AT $A1M AND OVER A. E. Bishop and Associates Amalgamated Wireless Australasia Andrew Antennas Andrew Engineering Aust Pty Ltd Automation Machine Dynamics British Aerospace Australia Comalco Ltd Commonwealth Aircraft Corp (Now Hawker De Havilland Victoria) Computer Sciences of Australia Condor Engineering Pty Ltd Email Ltd Fairey Australasia Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd Information Electronics Integraph Pty Ltd J. I. Case (Aust) Pty Ltd Jaguar Rover Aust. Ltd Kirby Engineering Pty Ltd McDonnell Douglas Aust Pty Ltd Mack Trucks Aust Pty Ltd Mercedes Benz (Aust) Pty Ltd Mount Isa Mines North Queensland Engineers and Agents Permutit Aust Pty Ltd PCM Electronics Plessey Pacific Defence Systems Qantas Airways Ltd Racal Electronics Pty Ltd Rockwell Electronics (Aust) Pty Ltd STC Cannon Components Pty Ltd Standard Telephones and Cables Thorn EMI Electronics Aust Varian Techtron Pty Ltd Vickers Cockatoo Dockyards Pty Ltd Western Mining Corp Holdings Westinghouse Electronics Australasia (Question No. 1419) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 October 1986. How many additional staff will now have to be employed by the Australian Taxation Office as a result of the review of the Fringe Benefits Tax announced by the Prime Minister, in addition to the reported increase of 590 staff in order to administer the governments tax package. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No additional staff will have to be employed by the Taxation Office as a result of the review of the Fringe Benefits Tax. (Question No. 1420) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at Garden Island Dock Yard which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices are in force at Garden Island Dock Yard, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Defence of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (5) On 21 March 1986, the Minister for Defence announced the need for restructuring to take place at Garden Island Dockyard, Williamstown Dockyard and the Government Aircraft Factories. Following extensive consultation with Unions and Associations covering employees at the dockyards and the aircraft factories, a total of some 800 personnel from the three establishments were voluntarily retrenched and approximately 350 additional employees left by natural attrition and redeployment elsewhere. A key element in the restructuring was the need to change a number of work practices which were having an adverse effect on efficient production. In order to maintain production following the reductions, a range of work practice changes were implemented immediately while discussions commenced with unions and associations aimed at introducing other changes which, in the longer term, would result in more efficient work processes. At Garden Island Dockyard, some 40 work practices that required elimination, modification or introduction were identified and addressed during and after restructuring. Some of these involved occupational safety and health considerations but the majority, however, did not. Since March 1986, some 24 of the identified work practices have been fully implemented while substantial progress has been made towards implementation of many of the remainder. Due to technical and arbitral procedural restraints, changes to some of the outstanding practices may take up to two years to be fully implemented. Garden Island Dockyard is committed to achieving a productivity improvement of 20 per cent in its major repair and refitting tasks over the next twelve months. Progress thus far in implementation of changes to work practices has been significant, indicating that improvement of this order will be achieved. This is a reflection of the co-operative attitude of the unions and associations towards achievement of changes. Due to the nature and variety of the work practices being addressed, costings as sought by the honourable senator in his question have not been undertaken. (Question No. 1421) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at Williamstown Dockyard which, in the opinion of the management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at Williamstown Dockyard, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Defence of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (5) On 21 March 1986, the Minister for Defence announced the need for restructuring to take place at Garden Island Dockyard, Williamstown Dockyard and the Government Aircraft Factories. Following extensive consultation with Unions and Associations covering employees at the dockyards and the aircraft factories, a total of some 800 personnel from the three establishments were voluntarily retrenched and approximately 350 additional employees left by natural attrition and redeployment elsewhere. A key element in the restructuring was the need to change a number of work practices which were having an adverse effect on efficient production. In order to maintain production following the reductions, a range of work practice changes were implemented immediately while discussions commenced with unions and associations aimed at introducing other changes which, in the longer term, would result in more efficient work processes. Over recent years, the primary workload at Williamstown Dockyard has moved from refit/modernisation to construction. Such a shift has necessitated the introduction of new work practices and the changing of other established practices. Over the past four years, work practice changes have been reflected in the following agreements: Industrial Management and Practice Agreement 1982, 38 Hour Week Agreement, and Statement to the Government on Continuation of Commitment to Reform. At Williamstown Dockyard, some 75 work practices that required elimination, modification or introduction were identified and addressed during and after restructuring. Some of these involved occupational safety and health considerations but the majority, however, did not. Since March 1986, some 50 of the identified work practices have either been introduced or agreement reached with the relevant union/association for introduction. Substantial progress has been made towards obtaining agreement to most of the remainder. This is a reflection of the co-operative attitude of the unions and associations towards achievement of changes. Williamstown Dockyard management is actively pursuing the implementation of all the identified work practices to ensure that their contractual obligations with regard to the Australian Frigate Program are met and to ensure that maximum productive benefits are achieved. To this end also, management have ensured that no restrictive work practices, of the nature described in the question, have been introduced since March 1986. Due to the nature and variety of the work practices being addressed, costings as sought by the honourable senator in his question have not been undertaken. (Question No. 1422) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 9 October 1986: (1) Is it intended that Professor Ovington, Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, is to make a submission to the World Heritage Commission in Paris, on 20 November 1986 seeking world heritage listing for Stage II of Kakadu National Park. If so, would that submission be made in contravention of procedures agreed between Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments, which, at the July 1984 meeting of the Council of Conservation Ministers agreed that the Commonwealth would not take unilateral action to nominate areas for World Heritage listing without the agreement of the State or Territory concerned. (2) If there is the potential for a breach of this agreement, in the Federal Government seeking World Heritage listing, will the Government reconsider its decision to nominate Stage II until full consultations with the Northern Territory Government have been conducted. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. Mr D. A. Gillespie, Assistant Director, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, was a member of the delegation to the World Heritage Committee meeting in Paris, 24 to 28 November 1986. At that meeting the World Heritage Committee agreed to an Australian request to defer, until further notice, the consideration of Stage 2 of Kakadu National Park as part of the Kakadu World Heritage Property already inscribed on the World Heritage List. The Australian request was made to the Committee following the tabling before the Committee of the order dated 24 November 1986 of the Hon. Mr Justice Beaumont of the Federal Court of Australia. That order resulted from legal action taken by Peko-Wallsend Limited and others against the Commonwealth. (2) The issue of further consultation on the proposed World Heritage listing of Stage 2 of Kakadu National Park will be determined when the legal proceedings in relation to this matter have concluded. (Question No. 1425) Senator Brownhill asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 October 1986: (1) Has the environmental study of the Cobar region by the company, Dames and Moore, for the Department of Defence in relation to their land acquisition plans, been given a termination date; if so, when; if not why not. (2) What monies have been allocated, for either development or further studies. (3) How long does the Department of Defence intend to keep the people in the Cobar region waiting for a decision as to the future of their land. (4) Is the Minister for Defence aware of the stress and personal and financial hardship of the people of Cobar caused by the Defence Department's studies of the area. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) to (4) As announced by the Leader of the Government in the Senate on 5 December 1986, the Government has decided not to proceed with the proposal to establish an Army manoeuvre training area in the Cobar region. (Question No. 1426) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 14 October 1986: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Science-What specific steps is the Federal Government taking to promote biotechnology in Australia and to study the associated ethical problems. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: 1. Biotechnology in Australia is being promoted through a wide range of general and specific measures primarily within the context of the Government's industry policy. General measures include the 150% Taxation Concession for research and development, while specific measures include: the National Biotechnology Program Research Grants Scheme which was established in 1983 and is designed to foster industry/researcher collaboration. It has now been incorporated as the generic technology component of the new Grants for Industry Research and Development (GIRD) which commenced on 1 July 1986. In the first four years of the program 31 projects in biotechnology have been supported at a cost of $17.8m. use of the National Interest provisions of the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) Act to provide additional assistance to an Australian-based project which aims to develop and market an anti-malaria vaccine. Some $9.3m will be provided to this project over three years. It involves a joint venture between the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the Queensland Institute of Medical Research and Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd. promotion of international joint ventures in biotechnology through, for example, inclusion of biotechnology companies in overseas investment missions. One such mission was to Japan from 4 to 8 November 1986. support for the biosciences group of the Scientific Industries Steering Committee, which is intended to extend biotechnology marketing opportunities in South East Asia: the Government sponsored a recent and successful visit by the group to Asia in July this year. 2. Biotechnology is often defined in terms of the applications, actual or potential, of its component technologies including, for example, genetic engineering and cell manipulation. Its relevance to ethical issues is therefore usually related to the application of one or other of its techniques. There are groups within Government which look at what might broadly be called ethical issues associated with these applications. The Animal Welfare Section within the Bureau of Rural Science of the Department of Primary Industry examines the technical and scientific aspects of animal treatment and use, while the National Health and Medical Research Council has developed guidelines on human ethical issues. (Question No. 1442) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 October 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Government Aircraft Factory which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at the Government Aircraft Factory, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management of the Government Aircraft Factory advised the Minister for Defence of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (5) On 21 March 1986, the Minister for Defence announced the need for restructuring to take place at Garden Island Dockyard, Williamstown Dockyard and the Government Aircraft Factories. Following extensive consultation with Unions and Associations covering employees at the dockyards and the aircraft factories, a total of some 800 personnel from the three establishments were voluntarily retrenched and approximately 350 additional employees left by natural attrition and redeployment elsewhere. A key element in the restructuring was the need to change a number of work practices which were having an adverse effect on efficient production. In order to maintain production following the reductions, a range of work practice changes were implemented immediately while discussions commenced with unions and associations aimed at introducing other changes which, in the longer term, would result in more efficient work processes. At Government Aircraft Factories, some 55 work practices that required elimination, modification or introduction were identified and addressed during and after restructuring. Some of these involved occupational safety and health considerations but the majority, however, did not. Since March 1986, some 10 of the identified work practice changes have been achieved, some 8 others have been partially achieved and progress is being made with many of the remainder. No new restrictive work practices, of the nature described in the question, have been introduced since March 1986. Due to the nature and variety of the work practices being addressed, costings as sought by the honourable senator in his question have not been undertaken. (Question No. 1451) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 October: (1) Are the VLF or HF facilities at North West Cape used for communication with B-52 bombers of the US Air Force flying from Guam through Darwin on surveillance missions over the Indian Ocean. (2) How many times have B-52 bombers stopped off in Darwin since the agreement was signed; and what are the figures for each year up to the present. (3) Have these B-52s on any occasion used the landing facilities at Diego Garcia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) Since B52 operations through Darwin began in 1981 there have been 141 B52 aircraft landings to 30 November 1986. The figures for each year up to the present are as follows: 1981-19 B52 landings in Darwin. 1982-22 B52 landings in Darwin. 1983-29 B52 landings in Darwin. 1984-28 B52 landings in Darwin. 1985-21 B52 landings in Darwin. 1986-22 B52 landings in Darwin (to 30 November). (3) No. (Question No. 1454) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 October 1986: (1) How many positions are there in Telecom's Finance and Accounting Department, or its equivalent, in each State. (2) How many people were employed in each of these Departments on 30 September 1986, and how many of these employees were on temporary contracts. (3) How many of the employees on temporary contracts in each of these Departments on 30 September 1986, have remained as temporaries through several succeeding contracts, and what is the number of contracts in each case. (4) How many of the temporary staff in each of these Departments have claimed compensation for RSI effects in each of the financial years beginning with 1982-83. (5) How many staff in these Departments who have claimed RSI compensation have had their contracts renewed or been given permanent positions at the end of the contract during which the claim was made, in each of the financial years from 1982-83, in each State. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: The information sought is outlined in the attachment. NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS HQ Question 1 How many positions are there in Telecom's Finance and Accounting Department, or its equivalent in each State. 963 555 486 223 222 102 317 Question 2 How many people were employed in each of these Departments on 30 September 1986, and how many of these employees were on temporary contracts. 892 2 546 19 454 4 257 31 228 4 83 8 261 4 Question 3 How many of the employees on temporary contracts in each of these Departments on 30 September 1986, have remained as temporaries through several succeeding contracts, and what is the number of contracts in each case. Total 1 1 x 2 Contracts Total 19 1 x 4 10 x 3 8 x 2 Contracts Total 3 3 x 2 Contracts Total 25 1 x 3 14 x 4 3 x 5 6 x 6 1 x 9 Contracts . . . . Total 4 1 x 21 2 x 3 1 x 4 Contracts Total 4 3 x 2 1 x 1 Contracts Question 4 How many of the temporary staff in each of these Departments have claimed compensation for RSI effects in each of the financial years beginning with 1982-3. 1982-3 1983-4 1984-5 1985-6 1986-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 . . . . . . 1 9 . . 4 3 8 . . 2 . . . . 3 2 . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . 2 10 2 . . Question 5 How many staff in these Departments who have claimed RSI compensation have had their contracts renewed or been given permanent positions at the end of the contract during which the claim was made, in each of the financial years from 1982-3, in each State. 1982-3 1983-4 1984-5 1985-6 1986-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 . . . . 7 1 . . 2 2 8 2 . . . . 2 2 3 . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . 2 7 2 . . (Question No. 1457) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 October 1986: (1) Has it been suggested by the Maralinga and Monte Bello Atomic Ex-Servicemen's Association that service records and medical documents of military personnel involved at the Emu, Maralinga and Monte Bello atomic tests have been falsified by the Department of Defence. (2) Has it also been suggested that the Department of Defence incorrectly informed major hospitals, when requests were submitted for service medical documents, that they held no information of people involved with the atomic tests. (3) Has the allegation been further made that, as a result of this information, hospitals treated test participants who were ill as psychologically disturbed patients. (4) Does the Department of Defence deny the allegations mentioned at (1), (2) and (3) above. (5) Does the Department of Defence in fact hold records of all military personnel involved in the tests at Emu, Maralinga and Monte Bello; if so, will such records be made available under the Freedom of Information Act. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1 to 3) Yes. (4) Yes. (5) (a). The Department of Defence holds most of the personal Service and medical records of the Australian military personnel involved; the remainder are held by various offices of the Australian Government Solicitor in connection with a number of current court proceedings and by Government organisations handling claims arising from the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees') Act 1971. As regards hospital records, despite extensive searches, those of the Maralinga Hospital have yet to be located. (b). Requests for personal and medical records made under the FOI Act will be made available whenever possible. This undertaking is limited only by exceptions and exemptions necessary for the protection of essential public interests and the private and business affairs of persons in respect of whom information is collected and held by departments and public authorities. Each request for access to a document is treated on its merits. Medical and Service documents are, however, generally accessible to the person concerned although, in some cases, documents containing medical or psychiatric information are disclosed only to a medical practitioner nominated by the person requesting access if it is judged that direct disclosure might be prejudicial to the health or well being of that person. (Question No. 1459) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 October 1986: (1) What were the number of days lost per employee due to industrial disputes in those countries which are Australia's major trading partners, in 1985. (2) What were the number of days lost per employee due to industrial disputes in each of the Australian States and Territories in 1985. (3) Do some Australian States and Territories now have industrial relations climates comparable to those in our major trading partners, as measured by numbers of days lost per employee. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In responding to Parliamentary Question No. 1008 which appears in Senate Hansard of 10 June 1986 on page 3701 I indicated the source for information concerning the level of industrial disputation in overseas countries was the 1985 edition of the International Labour Organisation's Year Book of Labour Statistics. This edition of the Year Book is still the latest available and it is not expected the 1986 edition will be available until early 1987. (2) For 1985 the numbers are: Australian States and Territories Days lost per employee Australia... 0.230 New South Wales... 0.209 Victoria... 0.239 Queensland... 0.417 South Australia... 0.048 Western Australia... 0.190 Tasmania... 0.144 Australian Capital Territory... 0.165 Northern Territory... 0.213 These numbers are derived from the figures for working days lost per thousand employees which are included in the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) publication, Industrial Disputes-Australia 1985 (Cat. No. 6322.0). (3) There are difficulties in making comparisons between the levels of industrial disputation of different countries and I refer the honourable senator to my reply to Question No. 1008 which outlines some of the problems involved. Accordingly it could be misleading to make detailed comparisons of the levels of industrial disputation of Australia and other countries. It is evident from the figures, however, that Queensland had a far worse industrial record than other states and experienced almost double the Australian average in days lost per employee during 1985. This record was due, in large part, to the confrontationist approach to industrial relations adopted by the Queensland government. Nonetheless despite the Queensland experience the fact remains that in Australia as a whole the level of industrial disputation has decreased significantly under the Hawke Government. (Question No. 1472) Senator Vanstone asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) Were any Commonwealth vehicles used to transport any protesters from Parliament House or its vicinity, to overnight accommodation on the night of 22 October 1986 or early morning of 23 October 1986; if so, how many cars were involved and at what cost. (2) At whose instigation and by whose authority was any such transportation provided. (3) Were any such protesters associated with the `Women for Survival Camp' located opposite Parliament House during the October 1986 sittings of the Parliament. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1 to 3 There are no identifiable records within my Department of any bookings having been made with its ACT Regional Office for Commonwealth vehicles to transport protesters associated with the `Women for Survival Camp' from Parliament House or its vicinity to overnight accommodation on either 22 or 23 October 1986. Individual bookings for Commonwealth vehicles, specifically allocated in bulk by my Department, to service the requirements of Senators and Members are the responsibility of the Presiding Officers in the respective Chambers. (Question No. 1475) Senator Newman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) Can the Minister advise why it is that single defence personnel without family who do not live in defence accommodation are not being allowed full removals on posting, and why it is that single public servants without family who live in private accommodation are allowed full removals on posting. (2) Can the Minister advise what action it is intended to take to see that this discrimination against single defence personnel without family is removed. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Living-in accommodation is provided for members without family at most Defence establishments throughout Australia. Because this accommodation is, by necessity, communal and, in most instances, shared with several other members, it is a sheer impossibility to provide such members with sufficient space to house all desired personal belongings other than items such as TVs, sound systems, small items of furniture, sporting gear and hobby items. Members without family may have these effects moved at public expense on posting. Where living-in accommodation is not available for Defence Force members without family they are provided with an allowance so that they are not financially disadvantaged and, if they move from this situation to the same situation in another locality, are granted a full removal on the same basis as the APS officer or an ADF member with family. Where a member chooses not to live in the accommodation provided, the effects that will be removed at public expense on posting are restricted to those which would be approved to move if the member had been living in Defence accommodation. To do otherwise would be discrimination against the member living-in. The Commonwealth does not provide Defence-type living-in accommodation for single members of the APS. Single members, like married members, are required to provide their own accommodation. When moved from one locality to another the members are required to rent or buy accommodation on the open market and, as the Commonwealth has no control over an APS member's accommodation tastes, it is not unreasonable that all personal belongings should be removed. As living-in accommodation is provided by the Commonwealth for Defence Force members without family but not for single APS members, Defence Force members who choose not to live in the Defence accommodation cannot be compared with APS members who are required to provide their own accommodation. Accordingly, there is no discrimination against Defence Force members without family in respect of removal entitlements on posting. Note: The Defence Force does not use the terms `married' and `single'; members are classified as being with or without family. For removal purposes `family' broadly embraces one or more of the following: spouse or de facto spouse, a child under 21 years of age, a parent of either partner, a guardian or housekeeper for a child or invalid spouse, or any other person as approved. (Question No. 1477) Senator Newman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) Are service personnel who are also non-custodial parents and who choose to live in private accommodation in order to provide a home for their visiting children not entitled as a right to a full removal on reposting. (2) Does a discretion exist to enable approval of such a removal. (3) If the answer to (2) above is in the affirmative, how many personnel have received the benefit of such a discretion. (4) If the answer to (2) above is in the negative, what action will the Minister for Defence take to remedy the situation and when. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (4) Generally speaking, Service personnel who are non-custodial parents who choose to live in private accommodation rather than in Defence provided accommodation are classified as members without family and treated no differently from other members without family in the matter of removal entitlements on reposting. The amount of belongings which will be removed at public expense is restricted to what would normally be accommodated in Defence provided accommodation. The problems of such members are recognised, however, and the ability exists for members who are living in to be assisted to live out in private accommodation during the period of a child's visit such as during school holidays. Alternatively, if a member can demonstrate that there are visiting rights in excess of 50% of the time assistance will be given for the member to live out in private accommodation for the duration of the posting. In the latter situation the member would have a full removal entitlement on reposting if a similar situation is to obtain in the new location-normally this would be dictated by the terms of a divorce settlement. It is not known how many non-custodial parent members have benefited from the full removal entitlement described above. These removals are authorised at unit level and it would be necessary to have the records of every unit in the Defence Force checked to find this information. There is sufficient flexibility under current rules to consider the problems of non-custodial parent members with a reasonable degree of compassion-this extends to visiting rights, housing and removals. It would be extremely difficult to justify placing non-custodial parents on the same footing as members with family on a permanent basis for removal purposes. The inference would be that Defence is liable to provide off-base housing for the members in the new locality notwithstanding that visits from a child might be short and infrequent. Additionally, there are many other members without family who choose to live out for private reasons who would wish to claim the same privileges and, to deny them, would be to discriminate against them. (Question No. 1482) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Service, upon notice, on 12 November 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services (CACS) Limited, which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at CACS Limited, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Service of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive practices. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am informed by Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Limited that the Company is unaware of any restrictive work practices in its operations. (Question No. 1483) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at AUSSAT Pty Ltd which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices are in force at AUSSAT Pty Ltd while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Communications of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from Aussat Pty Ltd: (1) None. AUSSAT was incorporated in 1981 to own and operate the Australian communications satellite system as a commercial venture. The Company has a statutory responsibility to conduct its affairs in accordance with sound commercial principles. Accordingly, I am advised that the Company has deliberately constructed its conditions of employment in accordance with normal commercial practice and there is little, if any, opportunity for restrictive work practices to develop within the Company. Moreover, as a young organisation operating in a relatively unique high technology environment, the Company's management actively encourages and requires high levels of productivity from company personnel. A work environment which would nurture restrictive work practices does not exist within AUSSAT. (2) None. (3) None. (4) Not Applicable. (5) Not Applicable. (Question No. 1486) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 12 November 1986: (1) What are the reasons for the release of circular No. 86/5 by the Department of the Special Minister of State in which all Senators and Members are reminded that official telephone lines in electoral offices are for voice communications only and not for any other data transmission. (2) Do the reasons include cost factors based on any experience within electorate offices or elsewhere. (3) Can the Minister advise the Senate of any studies done to assess the efficiency of using telephone lines to transmit data; if so, what are the findings of those studies, including findings relating to comparative costs of communicating data by electronic means and normal voice communication. (4) Would the Minister agree that this type of decision reflects a lack of familiarity with and understanding of Senators' and Members' requirements which should, therefore, be more appropriately the responsibility of the Parliament rather than an executive department. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (4) As the circular referred to in the honourable Senator's question did not address all of the arrangements relating to the issue it has been replaced. Honourable Senators and Members may, of course, install their own equipment, including data-transmission machines, in their electorate offices provided there is no additional cost to the Commonwealth. Where that equipment draws upon the official telephone lines and other facilities normally provided in electorate offices, the Department of the Special Minister of State continues to meet the costs of those lines and facilities, keeping the arrangements under review to ensure that the costs incurred continue to be at an acceptable level. However, where the installation of privately-owned equipment also involves installing new facilities to enable that equipment to be used, any additional costs incurred as a result are met by the respective Senator or Member. (Question No. 1487) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) Will the Minister for Finance initiate a review of all first-class air travel entitlements to rationalise expenditure on short flights between Canberra and Melbourne (45 minutes) and Canberra and Sydney (30 minutes). (2) How many people in the following categories are entitled to first-class air travel between these ports-(a) elected Members and spouses; (b) public servants; (c) statutory authority appointees; and (d) defence personnel. (3) What was the total cost of first-class air travel between Canberra-Melbourne return and Canberra-Sydney return in 1985-86 for-(a) the Department of Special Minister of State; (b) each Federal Government Department; and (c) each Federal Statutory Authority. (4) What would be the approximate savings to government of introducing a minimum 1 hour flight requirement for first-class eligibility for all elected representatives and federal government employees and appointees. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The matter of standard of travel entitlements for Members of Parliament, their spouses and statutory office holders is the responsibility of the Remuneration Tribunal and therefore beyond the discretion of the Minister for Finance to review. The first class air travel entitlements of public servants was reviewed recently in the context of the Australian Public Service streamlining proposals. (2) (a) Spouses have a restricted entitlement to travel first class at official expense on a limited number of trips to or from Canberra to the Senator's State or member's electorate. Senators or Members are entitled to first class travel whilst travelling on parliamentary or electorate business within Australia. (b) approximately 1900 (c) see the answer to (3) (d) 145. (3) and (4) The information sought is detailed and not readily available, and, due to the considerable effort which would be required, I do not consider that resources should be devoted to obtaining the information. Even an approximate indication of likely savings from the introduction of 1 hour flight times for first class eligibility would be very difficult to obtain. (Question No. 1489) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at Aboriginal Hostels Limited, which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at Aboriginal Hostels Limited, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) As a result of the Prime Minister's announcement of 25 September 1986, Aboriginal Hostels Limited is reviewing work practices in order to determine if changes can be made that would lead to increases in efficiency and effectiveness without impinging on justifiable occupational health and safety standards. (3) None. (4) None. (5) No. (Question No. 1490) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Aboriginal Development Commission and its subsidiaries which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at the Aboriginal Development Commission and its subsidiaries, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) As a result of the Prime Minister's announcement of 25 September 1986, the Aboriginal Development Commission is reviewing work practices in order to determine if changes can be made that would lead to increases in efficiency and effectiveness without impinging on justifiable occupational health and safety standards. (3) None. (4) None. (5) No. (Question No. 1491) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Were statements concerning the intentions of Mr Mordecai Vanunu to disclose matters concerning Israeli nuclear weapons capability to the Sunday Times reported early in September 1986 or at any other time by a resident of Kings Cross to Sergeant Chiddy of the New South Wales Police Special Branch at College Street, Sydney, and did Sergeant Chiddy pass this information on to ASIO. (2) Did ASIO pass on this information to the Israeli, British or any other security service; if so, why did ASIO pass on the information concerning a person who was acting in the world interest against nuclear weapons proliferation. (3) Is there any evidence that Mr Vanunu broke any Australian Law while in this country, or could be reasonably suspected of having done so. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In so far as the question concerns the operations of the New South Wales Police Force, it should be directed to the New South Wales Government. In so far as the question relates to ASIO, it has been the established practice of successive Australian Governments to neither confirm nor deny the activities of that organisation. (2) Refer to (1) above. (3) No, as far as I am aware. (Question No. 1492) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: Have private firms been contracted to provide a reporting service for Commonwealth Arbitration Hearings in Brisbane or elsewhere in October 1986; if so, is this a new arrangement and what payments were made to private firms for their services rendered and did this include any payment for airfares. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. During October 1986, Commonwealth Reporting Service (CRS) reporting and transcription commitments from Commonwealth courts and tribunals throughout Australia had accumulated to the extent that for a period of two weeks, commencing 27 October 1986, CRS was unable to provide a reporting service to a number of sittings of courts and tribunals. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was one of the tribunals affected during that period. In the circumstances it was necessary for the Arbitration Commission to engage private reporting resources to provide a transcript of proceedings before Commissioners in Brisbane and elsewhere. For that purpose, the Arbitration Commission engaged the private reporting firm contracted to the Attorney-General's Department to provide a reporting service to CRS. In the normal course of its daily operations, CRS does engage private reporting firms to undertake workload that is excess to capacity, but the engagement undertaken by the Arbitration Commission was in addition to that procedure to enable its members to deal with industrial disputes. I have been advised by the Arbitration Commission that accounts have been rendered by the contractor to the Commission totalling $27 036 and that that figure includes a component for air fares amounting to $3 770. (Question No. 1522) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) What was the annual cost of the provision of the VNG Standard Frequency and Time Signal Service. (2) Who are the principal users of the service, and does it provide important information, either directly or indirectly, to the professional astronomical community. (3) Is the service to be curtailed. (4) Are there any viable alternative sources of this information. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Recurrent operating costs of the VNG service are of the order of $100,000 per annum. However the existing transmitters are obsolete and need replacement. The order of costs for modern transmitters with aerials would be in the vicinity of $1.5m. (2) The principal users of the service have been Government Departments and Authorities as well as other organisations such as Universities and Astronomical Societies. The service has provided useful information in the radio astronomy, surveying, calibration and navigation fields. (3) and (4) As Telecom makes no use of time and frequency signals from VNG and could no longer justify the expense of maintaining the service, it was decided to write to the seven major Government organisations known to use VNG inviting them to consider alternative methods of gaining the required information or to consider taking over the operation of the service. Telecom offered to make the existing equipment available without charge to any organisation wishing to assume responsibility for the service. Responses were received from only two Departments still using the service (Defence and Resources and Energy) and pending further consultation with them, Telecom has agreed to continue to maintain the service for the time being. (Question No. 1530) Senator Hamer asked the Minister represen-ting the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 November 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Australian National Railways Commission, which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at the Australian National Railways Commission, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Transport of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (5) The Australian National Railways Commission (AN) has pursued the modification and/or elimination of work practices and staff levels which impact upon the efficiency and productivity of AN since amalgamation in 1978. AN has advised that it conducts an on-going review of employment levels. AN staff levels have been reduced by 3,527 (32 percent) since 1978. Over the same period there has been a 48 percent increase in traffic. Productivity per employee has increased by 115 percent between the years ending 30 June 1978 and 30 June 1986. Efficiency improvements have been achieved through a range of measures including rationalisation of catering staff and conductors on interstate passenger trains, introduction of two-person crewed freight trains, changes in train safe-working practices, train examination and freight handling. Attention has also been given to certain restrictive work practices as cost off-sets during negotiations with relevant unions regarding the introduction of a 38 hour week. Numerous other management initiatives have been implemented since amalgamation with the aim of achieving optimum efficiency and productivity, including rationalisation in all areas. Changes in work methods and modification/elimination of restrictive work practices have been an integral part of these changes. Further studies are currently being undertaken to identify opportunities for rationalisation in mechanical workshops at Islington and Launceston, and also in other areas. The improvement in AN's financial performance is reflected in the level of the revenue support provided by the Government. This has been reduced from $106m in 1982/83 to $64.5m in 1986/87, or more than halved in real terms. (Question No. 1532) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 19 November 1986: (1) What was the level of Customs seizures of (a) heroin; (b) cocaine; (c) cannabis and (d) other prohibited drugs at Australian airports or seaports by Customs agents in the years 1984-85 and 1985-86. (2) How many Customs officers were employed at airports and seaports in those 2 years. (3) How many Customs agents are employed at airports and seaports at the present time, and what are the employment projections for the future. (4) How many currently employed Customs officers are specifically in the drug detection area. (5) What measures are in place to step up drug surveillance in view of many reports of potential increases in smuggling and the emergence of the cocaine based killer drug ``smack''. Senator Button —The answer to the honour-able senator's question is as follows: (1) The following table provides details of drug seizures at Australian air and sea ports during the years 1984-85 and 1985-86: Air Sea kg no. kg no. Heroin- 1984-85 ... 29.2 23 1.0 1 1985-86 ... 36.9 24 0.0 1* Cocaine- 1984-85 ... 6.8 8 0.0 0 1985-86 ... 15.1 11 0.0 0 Cannabis- 1984-85 ... 460.9 95 2,882.8 11 1985-86 ... 94.9 68 2,302.9 11 Other**- 1984-85 ... 20.7 3 0.0 0 1985-86 ... 98.0 3 0.0 0 * Quantity too small to weigh (e.g. `6 cannabis seeds') ** Consists mainly of small quantities of amphetamine (2) It is difficult to provide meaningful figures of the number of officers engaged in Customs barrier activities solely at air and sea ports. Some 2000 ACS staff, including clerical officers, work in Barrier Enforcement related areas. These areas have responsibility for pro-cessing cargo, international mail, shipping, aircraft and passenger and crew control. Remote area activities, marine resources and Customs intelligence also fall within the Barrier. (3) The Australian Customs Service (ACS) does not have a separate category of officers known as ``customs agents''. (4) While the interception of illicit drugs is a primary concern to all officers engaged in these various processing areas, the Customs Barrier is responsible also for the interception of quarantinable goods, weapons and illegally imported or exported wildlife. (5) Closed circuit television systems are being upgraded at major international airports to enhance the drug detection capability of the ACS in passenger pro-cessing areas. Following the National Drug Summit in 1985, the ACS was allotted 60 additional staff for deployment on an expanded patrol program at sea and air ports. In 1986, the ACS has expanded the staffing of the Barrier Primary line by 64 staff units. This move is enabling the Service to adopt a more thorough and deliberate approach to passenger processing with the view to ``raising the risks'' for drug importers. Equipment acquisition programs, including X-ray machines, radios and vehicles, are better equipping officers to mount the anti-drugs campaign. These moves are in addition to a revised Customs strategy in remote areas, some additional funding for which was also provided as part of the Government's National Campaign Against Drug Abuse. (Question No. 1536) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 November 1986: (1) What present shipping arrangements are in place for the conduct of trade between New Zealand and Australia? (2) What are the objects and terms of reference of the recently announced review into shipping and on-shore arrangements to be jointly conducted by the BTE and NZ Ministry of Transport? (3) What expectations are held by either or both Governments, in terms of trade improvements as a result of the forthcoming review? Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are six shipping lines offering liner services between Australia and New Zealand, one of which is a joint service operated by Australian National Line (ANL) and New Zealand Line (NZL). Sailing frequency varies with one service offering a weekly sailing and other services offering sailings on a regular basis. A range of vessel types operate in the trade including container, roll on and roll off and breakbulk vessels. Bulk products are shipped on demand. (2) The object of the review of Trans-Tasman shipping is to improve bilateral transport efficiency and prepare for the Closer Economic Relations (CER) review scheduled for 1988. The review will comprehensively examine factors contributing to the present cost structure of shipping services and their influence on current and future trade. The terms of reference of the review of Trans-Tasman shipping are as follows: Following developments in the Trans-Tasman trade since the release of the ``Trans-Tasman Shipping'' report in 1980, the Australian and New Zealand Governments have agreed that the Australian Federal Bureau of Transport Economics and the New Zealand Ministry of Transport will jointly review Trans-Tasman shipping in the context of Closer Economic Relations between the two countries. Both bulk and non-bulk shipping is to be included. The views of all relevant parties, such as shipping lines, shippers, shore-based operators and relevant unions, are to be sought and reported, including any relevant regulatory arrangements or customary practices affecting the trade. The joint review is to assess and report on the following: (1) Cargo characteristics, cargo volumes and freight rate trends over recent years and their relationship to freight characteristics of relevant domestic and other international trades of the two countries. (2) Available shipping capacity and utilisation, including any interaction between liner and non-liner services. (3) The levels of competition in the provision of shipping services. (4) Factors which affect the adequate provision of efficient and competitive shipping services. (5) The influence of shipping services and freight rates on the levels of cargo moving in the trade. (6) The future outlook for Trans-Tasman shipping services in relation to trade expectations. (7) The influence of shore-based arrangements on shipping services in the trade, having regard to current Australian and New Zealand Government initiatives on shore-based shipping costs. (8) Any other matter relevant to the cost, efficiency or competitiveness of shipping services between the two countries. The two organisations should report jointly to the respective Transport Ministers by March 1987. (3) While it would not be appropriate to form a judgment as to the potential for future trade improvements until the findings of the Review are known, I consider that the Review will constitute a very important input to the 1988 Review of the Closer Economic Relations Agreement between Australia and New Zealand. (Question No. 1539) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 19 November 1986: (1) How many defaulters on community service orders have there been in: (a) the ACT; and (b) the Northern Territory in the years: (i) 1984-85, and (ii) 1985-86. (2) Are any figures available to the Minister to show comparisons with the various States to cover the same period of time. (3) What measures are available to Territory and State authorities to ensure unpaid community service work imposed by the courts is in fact carried out. (4) What measures have been taken against defaulters who have been eventually detected. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) ACT. (i) 1984-85: Nil. The Community Service Order Scheme commenced in August 1985. (ii) 1985-86: One. (1) (b) The Northern Territory Government is responsible for the Community Service Order Scheme in the Northern Territory. (2) Given the recent introduction of the Community Service Order Scheme in the ACT no comparisons can be made with State data. (3) The ACT Supervision of Offenders (Community Service Order) (Amendment) Ordinance 1985 provides for the supervision of adult offenders who are ordered by the Court to perform unpaid community work. Offenders who fail to comply with the terms of orders are guilty of an offence under Section 556K of the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance No. 11 of 1985. A specialist unit in the Adult Corrections Section of Welfare Services Branch monitors the performance of and hours worked by offenders placed with voluntary agencies and those under direct supervision. (4) The Community Service Order scheme provides the following measures to deal with defaulters: Minor offenders are initially warned orally and then formally by letter. Persistent offenders have breach action taken against them and information is laid before the Court. Custodial sentences have been imposed by the Courts on all offenders dealt with to date for non-compliance. (Question No. 1541) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 November 1986: (1) What was the estimated rabbit population in Australia in the following years: 1984-85; 1985-86. (2) How serious is the threat, present or potential, to the Australian agricultural industry. (3) What measures are in force, or foreshadowed, or contemplated to control rabbit numbers. (4) Will the Minister give an assurance that any form of germ warfare such as the infamous Myxomatosis campaign of the 1950s will not be part of any plan to control the proliferation of rabbits. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) It is impossible to give an accurate estimate of the Australian rabbit population. Rabbits occupy a wide range of habitats, and soil types and seek shelter in warrens or in thick undergrowth. Warren and night spotlighting counts give population estimates from 0-5 animals/sq km in areas of low infestation to more than 2000/sq km in high density areas. A CSIRO study has put the 1985-86 rabbit population for the Northern Territory alone at 50 million. This is in an area considered as marginal habitat for rabbits and experiencing severe drought conditions. No details are available for the other States. (2) Rabbits currently pose a substantial threat to Australian agriculture. The greatest economic loss is caused by pasture damage. Approximately 10 rabbits eat as much as one sheep and 50 as much as a yearling steer. In times of drought this consumption becomes most serious. Rabbits also physically damage the environment by burrowing and may induce severe erosion which varies from exacerbation of gully erosion in high rainfall areas to sheet and wind erosion in the semi arid zones. Given the rabbit's capacity for rapid reproduction under good conditions, these problems can develop quite quickly. The cost of even a moderate infestation can be very large to the primary producer in terms of crop, meat and wool production losses and the implementation of controls. The seriousness of the rabbit threat is increasing, due mainly to the recent downturn in the rural economy where landholders are less inclined to carry out labour intensive and expensive control procedures and a rise in the resistance of rabbits to a less virulent Myxonia virus. (3) The main methods presently used for controlling rabbits are: poisoning, using baits (usually diced carrots) and 1080 (mono-sodium fluoroacetate) or Diaphacinone. fumigation of burrows using Phostoxin (aluminium phosphide) or chlorpicrin. shooting and trapping by commercial operators. myxomatosis. Biological control using the Myxonia virus transmitted by mosquitoes and rabbit fleas. Warren ripping. The destruction of burrows and large colonies using bulldozers. blasting. Using explosives to destroy warrens in stony or hilly areas where ripping is impracticable. netting and electric fencing. These methods restrict the movement of rabbits, confining them to areas where other control methods can be employed. Properly applied these methods can keep Australia's rabbit population in check. There are no new control techniques on the horizon. (4) Before the introduction of Myxomatosis into this country in 1950 the rabbit population was in excess of 500 million. The Myxonia virus reduced numbers by 99% during the following three year period. One of the most noticeable direct results was an increase in the national wool clip by 32,000 tonnes in just one year. Myxomatosis is an example of a species specific, biological control agent that saved the rural sector many millions of dollars per year. Attenuation of the Myxonia virus has produced field strains with a reduced virulence and the control rate has now fallen to around 40%. However Myxonia is still regarded as the main contributing factor in the control of rabbits in Australia and without it primary producers in remote areas would have no chance of controlling rabbits. Therefore an assurance cannot be given that if another biological control agent was found, it would not be used to keep numbers at a manageable level. The rabbit problem is not as grim as it was before myxomatosis but in these times of extreme economic hardship in the rural community any alternative to some of the labour intensive and expensive control measures presently used would have to be considered on its scientific and economic merits. (Question No. 1542) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 November 1986: (1) Has the Federal Government decided to adopt a proposal from the Australian Customs Service to centralise customs clearances at Sydney and Melbourne at the expense of the port of Brisbane and also at Brisbane Airport. (2) Does the Customs Service proposal mean the end of a long established practice of Brisbane bound cargo being discharged from ships or aircraft in Sydney and moved under bond to Brisbane for customs clearance. (3) Would the proposal mean importers would be required to clear their cargo in Sydney. (4) What consultations have taken place on this issue between the Australian Customs Service and the Brisbane Port Users Committee, an informal body of employers and employees through their various industrial bodies. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The proposed Integrated Cargo Control and Clearance System (ICCCS) is the subject of continuing consultation between the Australian Customs Service (ACS) and interested parties. The ACS has prepared a discussion paper which details the features of ICCCS and is seeking industry responses to the various options by 30 January 1987. Responses will be used by the ACS either to firm up a plan for implementation of ICCCS, or perhaps ICCCS in a modified form. The ACS is not proposing that Customs processes for the clearance of cargo be transferred to and concentrated at the major ``gateway'' ports and airports. The ACS simply seeks to have most of the current documentary processes carried out before the cargo arrives at the gateway port. (2) One of the ACS's principal objectives in proposing ICCCS is to upgrade its identification and control of high risk cargo immediately from the time it arrives in Australia. The key factor for the achievement of this objective is to maximise the level of early entry. The consequence of a high level of early entry would be a reduction in the incidence of underbond removals. Importers/agents who do not participate in the ICCCS will be able to continue to use existing procedures. These procedures, however, will not remain entirely unchanged. Subject to the availability of ACS resources, there will be closer scrutiny of goods moving from gateway ports to secondary ports under the existing underbond system. (3) No. The ICCCS proposal aims to have the lodgement and processing of entry information completed before the cargo arrives at the gateway port. This would allow the release from Customs control, as early as possible, of cargo assessed as presenting minimal risk and not required for random check. The electronic entry option would maintain, as far as possible, present practices for carrying out the current documentary processes at the destination ports. (4) A meeting was held in Brisbane on Friday 20 December 1986 between representatives of the Australian Customs Service and the Brisbane Port Users Committee. Consultation centred on the discussion paper referred to above. The Committee has undertaken to provide a written submission by 30 January 1987. (Question No. 1544) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 20 November 1986: (1) Is the Minister for Aviation aware of the problems faced by Kendell Airlines who are trying to establish a new passenger service at Ceduna in South Australia using a SAAB 340. (2) Have Kendell Airlines decided to conduct tests on the SAAB 340's capability of landing on a natural surface, in conjunction with monitoring by the Department of Aviation; if so, at what stage are these tests. (3) Is the Commonwealth considering upgrading the airport at Ceduna; if so, what progress has been made. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Minister for Aviation is aware that Kendell Airlines had been unable to use their SAAB SF340 aircraft on flights to Ceduna because that aircraft type was not certified for operation from natural surface runways. (2) Following an approach from SAAB Aircraft International Ltd the Department of Aviation has accepted the principle that SAAB SF340 aircraft may be operated on grass covered runways, subject to certain operational restrictions being observed, prior to formal testing of the aircraft type on such surfaces. A suitable flight manual amendment authorising this arrangement will be prepared in the near future. (3) The Commonwealth has no immediate plans to upgrade the aerodrome at Ceduna. (Question No. 1559) Senator Sheil asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 4 December 1986: (1) What is the excise on eucalyptus oil. (2) What is the proof of Australian eucalyptus oil. (3) What is the average proof of imported eucalyptus oils. (4) Have any Australian eucalyptus oil distilleries closed down since the imposition of excise. (5) As we are being urged to `Buy Australian', what is the Government doing to assist the local industry. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Excise duty is not payable on eucalyptus oil. In accordance with Section 5 of the Excise Tariff Act duties of excise are imposed on all goods dutiable under the Schedule to the Act. Eucalyptus oil is not a product that falls within the description of goods listed in the Schedule and therefore no excise duties are payable. (2) Eucalyptus oil is an essential oil and as such is not a spirituous substance. (3) See answer to question (2). (4) As no excise duty has been imposed on eucalyptus oil, no changes which may have occurred in the industry can be attributed to imposition of excise duty. (5) Eucalyptus oil is one of a number of inputs, described as essential oils, used in the flavours and fragrance industries in Australia. A number of companies refine eucalyptus oil in Australia and the quality of this oil is such that all local production is purchased by the local manufacturers of flavours and fragrances. Imports of eucalyptus oil are necessary, nevertheless, because the local industry does not have sufficient capacity to supply all the Australian requirements for this oil. (Question No. 1566) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 December 1986: (1) Is the Treasurer aware of current speculation that Tan Sri Khoo Tech Puat may sell his interest in the Southern Pacific Hotel Corporation. (2) If this should occur, will the Treasurer take steps to ensure that the Company remains Australian owned. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Government is aware of press reports to the effect that Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat may sell his interest in South Pacific Hotel Corporation Holdings Limited. Foreign investment approval would be required if it were proposed that the company be sold to a foreign interest. Under the current policy applying to the tourism industry, such a proposal would normally be approved unless it were found to be contrary to the national interest. (Question No. 1567) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 4 December 1986: (1) Is the Minister for Aviation aware of adverse effects on the tourist industry in northern Queensland caused by recent allegations concerning Cairns International Airport. (2) Can the Minister advise: (a) are safety standards at that airport adequate (b) are any changes planned (c) what steps can be taken to restore tourist confidence in the Cairns Airport. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) (a) Safety standards at Cairns airport are considered to be adequate for the current degree and complexity of air traffic. (b) My Department has an on-going Australia-wide review of air traffic workloads. In line with this programme my Department has recently engaged a consultant to review Australia's air traffic system. Changes at Cairns and elsewhere, may be implemented after full consideration of the consultant's report. (c) I am not aware of any lack of tourist confidence in Cairns airport. Australia's overseas carrier, Qantas, has stated publicly that standards at Cairns are quite safe and satisfactory for their present operations. (Question No. 1575) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 5 December 1986: (1) Is the Minister for Community Services able to report on progress in regard to the Home and Community Care Program in Queensland. (2) When will Local Government and community organisations be advised of successful applications. (3) Why is Queensland's Health Department so slow in implementing this important federal initiative to assist elderly people. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Queensland was the last of the States and Territories to sign the HACC Agreement with the Commonwealth. This did not take place until April 1986. (2) and (3) $11.4 million is available for new Home and Community Care (HACC) services in Queensland in 1986/87. The Queensland Government's Department of Health called for applications with closing dates on 15 July, 15 August and 15 September 1986. I understand that some $50 million worth of applications for HACC service were received by the State, the bulk of them by 15 August 1986. The Head of my Department went to Brisbane on 30 October to discuss with the Director-General of Medical Services of the State Health Department ways of expediting the application process. He was given assurances that applications would progressively be assessed so that by mid/end November most projects would have been able to be recommended to the State Minister and me. I received formal advice from the Queensland Minister of Health and Environment dated 31 December 1986 that he has now approved 53 projects totalling around $4.3 million. My Department is now preparing for my consideration this first package of projects from Queensland. I note that a new Minister-Mr Ahern, has taken responsibility for the Queensland Department of Health and Environment. I can only hope he is able to change this situation where applications are taking around five months for assessment prior to going to Ministers. (Question No. 1587) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 10 December 1986: (1) How many licensed stamp vendors were in each State and Territory as of 30 June 1986. (2) What changes in these numbers are expected in the course of the current financial year. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (1) New South Wales 3,188, Victoria 3,327, Queensland 2,343, Western Australia 1,194, South Australia 1,472, Tasmania 476, Australian Capital Territory 199, Northern Territory 167, National 12,366. (2) The annual growth rate over recent years has been between 2.5% and 3% and it is considered that this will continue. (Question No. 1592) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 10 December 1986: On what date will the Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays and Staffing for 1987-88 and 1988-89 be released for public scrutiny. What have been the dates on which this publication has been released since 1980. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) The Report on the Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays for 1987-88 and 1988-89 was released on 21 December 1986. This report also included Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays for 1989-90. (2) (i) Publication of the Forward Estimates Report commenced in 1983. ``Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays for 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86'' was released on 6 April 1983. (ii) ``Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays and Staffing for 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87'' was released on 27 March 1984. (iii) ``Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays and Staffing for 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88'' was released on 9 May 1985. (iv) ``Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays and Staffing for 1986-87 and 1987-88'' was released on 19 November 1985. Senator Walsh —On 20 February 1986 (Hansard, page 702) Senator Peter Baume asked me as Minister representing the Treasurer a question without notice concerning fringe benefits tax and charities. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: Public benevolent institutions are exempted from fringe benefits taxation on the non-cash benefits provided to their employees. The phrase `public benevolent institution' does not have a statutory definition but is generally understood to be an institution for the relief of poverty, sickness, suffering, distress, misfortune, destitution or helplessness. Public benevolent institutions have, as a common feature, the giving of relief freely to those who are in need of it and are unable to care for themselves. Organisations which do not satisfy these requirements will be subject to tax on benefits provided to their employees in accordance with the valuation rules set out in the legislation. Senator Gareth Evans —On 13 November 1986 (Hansard, page 2140) Senator Harradine asked me as the Minister representing the Attorney-General the following question without notice: Whether the Minister was aware of a number of matters concerning the availability of video material and what action the Federal Government proposed to take to implement the interim measures recommended by the Senate Select Committee on Video Material pending the outcome of the Joint Select Committee inquiry. The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am aware of the matters referred to by the honourable senator. In relation to action proposed by the Federal Government to implement interim measures recommended by the Senate Select Committee, the proposal for a moratorium on the sale and hire of `X' rated material in the A.C.T. was submitted to the A.C.T. House of Assembly in 1985. However, the House of Assembly did not provide support for the proposal. The Government's current position is that it does not propose to amend any censorship legislation until the Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Video Material has been presented to and considered by Parliament. Senator Walsh —On 20 November 1986 (Hansard, page 2609) Senator Reynolds asked me a question without notice concerning the oversight of joint Commonwealth-State funded projects in Queensland by my department. I can now provide the following additional information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The development of the Expo 88 site is not a jointly funded Commonwealth/State project. Expo 88 is being managed by the Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Redevelopment Authority which is a Queensland agency. $3m of Commonwealth funds are currently held in trust by the Authority for the Commonwealth to offset costs of Commonwealth participation in Expo 88 including the construction of an Australian Pavilion. Details relating to Commonwealth participation are expected to be announced shortly by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Senator Walsh —On 17 October 1986 (Hansard, page 1515), Senator Maguire asked me as Minister representing the Treasurer a question without notice concerning the production of coins for other countries by the Royal Australian Mint. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: Consistent with its charter, the Royal Australian Mint seeks contracts for the production of foreign coinage and it has been particularly active in this regard over recent years following a downturn in domestic coin demand. As has already been outlined to the honourable senator, the Mint produces coins for several Pacific Island states and it has completed contracts for the production of New Zealand and Papua New Guinea coins. The depreciation of the Australian dollar will significantly enhance the competitiveness of the Mint in tendering for foreign coinage contracts and the Mint will pursue opportunities provided by the depreciation vigorously. Senator Grimes —On 11 November 1986 (Hansard, page 1868), Senator Knowles asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the monitoring of the incidence of acquired immune deficiency syndrome overseas and the possible screening of short term visitors to Australia. The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commonwealth monitors the situation abroad through WHO publications, the medical and scientific literature, and reports from our embassies and high commissions. However, it is not possible to obtain reliable incidence data from the less developed countries, where formal reporting schemes have not been established. AIDS is a cosmopolitan infection with numerous pockets of high incidence. One must consider the issue of screening visitors in a general sense, rather than confining oneself to nationals from any one country. There are over a million visitors to Australia annually. It would be neither practicable nor affordable to screen these people for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) antibodies. Commonwealth policy focuses on preventing the spread of HIV to uninfected persons. AIDS is not spread by casual contact or contact with food, clothing, utensils and so forth. Generally, it is transmitted sexually, or by sharing of needles among intravenous drug abusers, or to the child from an infected mother. Therefore, the most effective approach is to encourage people to adopt appropriate defensive behaviours to prevent them from becoming infected. To this end, the Commonwealth Government is devoting $2 million this financial year to a national education program. Total Commonwealth expenditure proposed for specific AIDS programs in 1986-87 is $9.9 million. Senator Ryan —On 5 December 1986 (Hansard, page 3506) Senator Kilgariff asked me a question, without notice, concerning the Australian Bicentennial Authority's decision not to include Mr Harry Butler in a Bicentennial promotion filmed at Uluru and I undertook to obtain relevant information. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentenary has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The request for Mr Harry Butler to withdraw from appearing in a segment of the Australian Bicentennial Authority's television commercial resulted from a decision made by the Australian Bicentennial Authority (ABA). The Government was not involved in any way in the matter. Senator Walsh —On 25 September 1986 (Hansard, page 842) Senator Watson asked me as Minister representing the Treasurer the following question without notice: ..., I ask whether the Minister is aware of the circumstances in which a taxpayer's principal residence is subject to capital gains tax and under what circumstances, if any, the tax exemption for the principal residence would be available for a person who rents his premises and lives in another house. In reply, I stated: Subject to confirmation-because I am not sure that I can accurately remember the details of this-I believe the position is that a person may own one residence and, whether living in that residence or not, that residence continues to attract exemption from capital gains tax if it is sold, providing that the person does not own another residence at the same time. ... Senator Watson further asked me as Minister representing the Treasurer on 16 October 1986: ... Does the Minister now confirm his answer or is he now aware that his statement that a home is exempt, whether lived in or not, misled the Senate and is incorrect? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: A gain realised on the disposal of a taxpayer's principal residence will not be subject to the tax on capital gains. However, a gain may be subject to tax where part of the residence was used for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income, or the residence was not the taxpayer's sole or principal residence, during any part of the period in which the residence was owned by the taxpayer. In that case, the proportion of the gain which is subject to tax is determined having regard to the extend to which, and the period for which, the part of the residence was used for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income or the period for which the dwelling was not the taxpayer's sole or principal residence. Where a taxpayer temporarily ceases to occupy his or her sole or principal residence and the dwelling again becomes the sole or principal residence of the taxpayer within 4 years, the taxpayer may elect that the dwelling is to be deemed to have been his or her sole or principal residence during that period. This may apply for example, to a person posted interstate. In these circumstances, no other dwelling can be treated as the sole or principal residence of the taxpayer during the period concerned, and the use of the residence for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income is disregarded. Therefore, in those circumstances, the availability of the principal residence exemption would continue, even though the residence is rented during the period in which it is not being used as the taxpayer's sole or principal residence. Senator Button —On 4 December 1986 Senator MacGibbon asked me the following question without notice: Is the Australian Government prepared to give tangible support to setting up a gemstone industry in this country? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: My Department is funding a feasibility study of the gemstone processing industry by the consultants, PA Technology Pty Ltd. The objective of this study is to identify any technological developments required to increase industry competitiveness and to recommend means by which these technologies could be developed and implemented. The Report of this study was received on 17 December by the Department and is being examined. The Government can best support the setting up of a gemstone processing industry in Australia by creating a productive environment for the growth of competitive industries, and by encouraging industries, including the gemstone processing industry, to utilise the latest processing technology, develop marketing strategies and undertake R & D. The devaluation of the Australia dollar should help to foster a competitive gemstone industry in Australia. (Question No. 909) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 February 1986: (1) Was Mr Lloyd Errol Faint, who is supposed to be serving a 2 year jail sentence at Numinbah Prison Farm for large scale tax fraud, accompanied to the Bundamba racetrack in Queensland on 22 January 1986 by a Commonwealth Officer, and driven in a Commonwealth car. (2) What was the Commonwealth Officer's name and rank in the public service. (3) Was any charge subsequently laid against the Commonwealth Officer. (4) Have visits by Commonwealth Officers to see Mr Faint, and escort him backwards and forwards from Numinbah been frequent, as according to newspaper reports, and what has been the purpose of such excursions. (5) Who authorised them, and upon whose suggestion. (6) Has any positive evidence been forthcoming from Mr Faint as a result of these excursions from Numinbah which has resulted, or in the future might result, in further prosecutions for income tax fraud or the identification of `bottom of the harbour' tax evasion schemes. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I have been advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions as follows: (1) Mr Lloyd Errol Faint pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth and was sentenced to a term of 2 years imprisonment which commenced on 9 May 1985. On 21 January 1986 Mr Faint was accompanied by a temporary Commonwealth Officer to the Bundamba racetrack in Queensland. (2) The officer's name is James Nihill North and at the relevant time he held the position of a temporary clerical administrative officer, class 8, in the Brisbane Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. (3) No criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr North. However, as a result of the incident disciplinary action was immediately taken, and Mr North's services were dispensed with. (4) Mr Faint has been required on numerous occasions to attend the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the purpose of preparing statements and to attend court proceedings in Brisbane, Sydney and Perth to give evidence in criminal matters on behalf of the Crown. (5) The attendances were authorised by the Superintendent of Her Majesty's Prison, Numinbah, following requests by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The visit to the Bundamba racetrack on 21 January 1986 was not authorised. (6) Mr Faint's evidence has been of substantial assistance in the committal proceedings and trials of other persons involved in `bottom of the harbour' tax evasion schemes. However, the evidence of Mr Faint has not resulted in any further prosecutions or the identification of other tax evasion schemes. (Question No. 1082) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: What procedures are in force to protect Australia from radiation leaks caused by accidents to nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships, particularly in view of the fact that nuclear-powered ships with their small reactors use highly enriched fuel. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I refer the honourable Senator to part (3) of my answer to Senate Question 795 published in Hansard on 19 August 1986. I would add that arrangements for NPWs are based on estimates of the effect of an accidental release of radioactivity from the vessel's reactors. The amount of fission products which may be released is a function of the power output of the reactor, and is not dependent on the degree of enrichment of the fuel used to produce this output. (Question No. 1247) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What television advertising programs are currently being undertaken by Australia Post. (2) What is the purpose of these programs. (3) What is the cost of these programs. (4) What assessments has Australia Post conducted to determine the benefits of these advertising programs. (5) If Australia Post has conducted any evaluation of the benefits of these advertising programs, what benefit has been revealed. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from Australia Post: (1) and (2) The only television advertising campaign recently undertaken by Australia Post was the corporate ``Striving for Excellence'' campaign. About half of Australia Post's revenue is derived from services which are in direct competition with other enterprises. Even the portion of Australia Post's business which is covered by the statutory letter monopoly faces indirect competition from other forms of communication such as telephone and facsimile services and Australia Post, therefore, must continually strive to increase its market share in order to guarantee postal customers the vigorous level of services which will meet their needs at the lowest price. The advertising campaign was designed to capture the attention of the business market, in particular, in order to lift Australia Post's market share in competitive areas of business as well as to improve Australia Post's public visibility. (3) The `Striving for Excellence' campaign to which the Honourable Senator refers cost $3m Australia wide. (4) and (5) All advertising campaigns are concept tested and subjected to pre-campaign market research and post-campaign effectiveness testing. Evaluations have indicated that Australia Post's public image has improved significantly as a result of its `Striving for Excellence' campaign. When the campaign was launched earlier in the year a growth in business for 1985-86 of about 3% over the previous year was the aim. In the event, 2.8% was achieved. However, although Australia Post budgetted for a 4.3% increase in mail volumes in 1986-87, figures to date indicate a growth rate of 5.6% over 1985-86. (Question No. 1337) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) To what extent are television programs viewed in full to determine whether they comply with the regulations. (See answer to Question without Notice asked on 5 June, Hansard, 19 August 1986, p. 97). (2) What control, if any, does the Government have over satellite material or material that is classified by the television networks as urgent to determine whether such programs comply with these regulations. (3) Has any program over the last 2 years been refused air play or been modified to comply with the regulations; if so, what were the names of these programs, when were they screened, and on what stations. Senator Walsh —The following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, has been supplied by the Minister for Communications: (1) Programs intended purely for transmission on commercial television must comply with the Interim Television Program Standards introduced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) on 1 February 1986. Responsibility for classification of those programs, and for ensuring that television material complies with other aspects of those Standards, rests with the licensee. The ABT has, however, a power to pre-classify children's programming for use on commercial television. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service are not subject to the ABT Program Standards but maintain similar standards in relation to the presentation of material concerning drugs. Under the Interim Standards, material is classified as unsuitable for broadcasting if, among other things: Techniques for the consumption of illegal drugs are demonstrated (care must also be exercised in depicting the use of legal drugs) The misuse of intoxicating liquor, drugs or narcotics is presented as desirable. Certain classifications of programs cannot be shown during particular times of the day. (2) Australian satellites broadcasters are subject to the same rules as terrestrial broadcasters. Foreign satellite broadcasts using foreign satellites are not subject to Australian control even if their signal is receivable in Australia. However diplomatic measures may be taken if problems arise. Non broadcast services, for example program distribution, are regarded as private communications and are not subject to controls over content, assuming they comply with the criminal law. However, material distributed by satellite, if broadcast in Australia, must comply with the restrictions referred to in (1). (3) It is probable that broadcasters have refused to play, or play in an unmodified form, certain programs. Decisions taken by licensees in accordance with their obligations under the Broadcasting Act 1942, however, are not normally notified to the ABT. The ABT is concerned only with breaches of its standards. If a licensee breaches ABT standards, the matter may be examined during a licence renewal inquiry; or if circumstances warrant, at a specially convened inquiry. The ABT has powers to give legally enforceable directions to licensees to ensure compliance with its standards. (Question No. 1361) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: (1) Where are the 20 Nomad coastal patrol aircraft which the Indonesian navy possess based. (2) What routine operations do they perform. (3) Have these aircraft been deployed in, or off the coast of, West Papua (Irian Jaya) or East Timor. (4) Where are the DART small-arms training aids manufactured by Australia, Training Aids (ATA) of Albury, which have been exported to Indonesia, located. (5) Which units of the Indonesian military, police, or paramilitary forces use these aids in training. (6) How many of these training aids have been exported to Indonesia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. (1) The Indonesian Navy currently operates 17 NOMAD aircraft from an original fleet of 18. The home base for these patrol aircraft is Juanda Naval Air Base, Surabaya. (2) and (3) The NOMAD's primary role is in maritime reconnaissance, involving routine operations for the protection of fishing rights, detection of smuggling and illegal entry, protection against piracy, and search and rescue activities. The aircraft have been deployed by the Indonesian Government to undertake such operations wherever in Indonesia it has considered it to be appropriate. (4), (5) and (6) A total of 8 static and portable electronic target ranges were provided under Defence Co-operation to Indonesia during the period 1974-76. The aids provided under Defence Co-operation were for the training of Indonesian Army personnel. The static ranges were installed at Cipatat and Gunung Bohong, near Bandung (West Java) and at Yogyakarta (Central Java). Since 1980 360 portable target mechanisms and 1 Superdart (consisting of 2 systems) have been exported to Indonesia by ATA under commercial sale arrangements. The Superdart is located in Madiun, Java. (Question No. 1439) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 14 October 1986: Does the Government propose to allow the transmission of other data in considering the terms for licensing of subscriber satellite television services; if so, subject to what requirements? Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: On 17 October 1986 Guidelines for the provision of Video and Audio Entertainment and Information Services were tabled in Parliament. The Guidelines set out the content and licensing requirements for these new services. Such services are delivered to identified categories of end users in non-domestic environments. They can include information services, for example, stock exchange data. The services transmitted over Telecom's network are to be authorised under the Telecommunications Act 1975. Radiated services (including satellite delivered services) are licensed under the Radiocommunications Act 1983. In all cases the service providers are required to enter into an agreement with the Commonwealth to comply with the Guidelines. (Question No. 1444) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 October 1986: (1) What are the procedures at present for the destruction (including the bulk erasure) or retention of: (a) transcribed; and (b) untranscribed, reporters' shorthand notes of proceedings of Commonwealth Courts and Tribunals- (c) transcribed; and (d) untranscribed, sound recording tapes of Commonwealth courts and tribunals (e) master copies of the transcribed shorthand notes and recordings. (2) How have these procedures changed between 1979 and the present. (3) What legal regulations exist to control the retention and destruction of such records. (4) How have these legal regulations changed since 1979. (5) Was a tape of a Taxation Board of Review Hearing destroyed in May, 1980 after the material accuracy of the transcript made from that hearing was challenged by a Mr Hancock; and why was this tape destroyed while the accuracy of the transcript was under challenge. (6) Does the Attorney-General agree that subject to some other reasonable explanation being put forward, only incompetence or more sinister reasons can be advanced for the destruction of a tape in May, 1980 after an ombudsman's investigation was commenced in April 1980. (7) Is it correct that the destruction of the tape took place on either Tuesday, 6 May or Wednesday, 7 May 1980 after Mr Richardson the Ombudsman made a call to the Commonwealth Reporting Service on Monday, 5 May, 1980 asking for access to the relevant tape. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. Question (1): The current procedures for the destruction or retention by CRS of reporter shorthand notes and sound recording tapes of Commonwealth courts and tribunals are prescribed in Australian Archives Records Disposal Schedule No. S.403. Those procedures are as follows: (a) The Records Disposal Schedule stipulates that transcribed reporter shorthand notes may be destroyed by CRS when operational references ceases after transcription. In fact, the notes are destroyed three months after transcription. Those notes are held by CRS pending that destruction. (b) Untranscribed reporter shorthand notes are held by CRS for one year and then transferred to Australian Archives and are destroyed by Archives after ten years, in accordance with the Records Disposal Schedule. (c) The Records Disposal Schedule stipulates that transcribed sound recording tapes may be destroyed by CRS when operational reference ceases after transcription. In fact, the tapes are erased three months after transcription. Those tape recordings are held by CRS pending that erasure. (d) Untranscribed sound recording tapes are held by CRS for one year and then transferred to Australian Archives and are destroyed by Archives after ten years, in accordance with the Records Disposal Schedule. (e) Master copies (typed originals) of transcripts of shorthand notes and tape recordings are held by CRS for one year and then transferred to Australian Archives for permanent retention, in accordance with the Records Disposal Schedule. Question (2): In 1979 the procedures for the destruction or retention by CRS of reporter shorthand notes and sound recording tapes of Commonwealth courts and tribunals were prescribed in Australian Archives Records Disposal Schedule No. S.393. Those procedures were as follows: (a) Under the Records Disposal Schedule, transcribed reporter shorthand notes were destroyed by CRS within six months after transcription. Those notes were held by CRS pending that destruction. (b) Untranscribed reporter shorthand notes were held by CRS for one year and then transferred to Australian Archives and were destroyed by Archives after ten years. (c) Under the Records Disposal Schedule, transcribed sound recording tapes were erased by CRS within six months after transcription. Those tapes were held by CRS pending that destruction. (d) Untranscribed sound recording tapes are held by CRS for one year and then transferred to Australian Archives and were destroyed by Australian Archives after ten years. (e) Master copies (typed originals) of transcripts of shorthand notes and tape recordings were held by CRS for one year and then transferred to Australian Archives for permanent retention, in accordance with the Records Disposal Schedule. Question (3): The procedures for retention and destruction of reporter shorthand notes and sound recording tapes are prescribed in Australian Archives Records Disposal Schedule No. S.403, issued 2 September 1980 and amended 6 September 1983. Question (4): Australian Archives Records Disposal Schedule No. S.393 was superseded by Records Disposal Schedule No. S.403, and under that schedule transcribed shorthand notes are destroyed and tape recordings erased when operational reference ceases. Question (5): It is understood that a tape recording (provided by CRS for the internal purposes of the Board, in accordance with a then existing practice but discontinued soon after) held by the Taxation Board of Review was erased in May 1980, in accordance with the Board's usual procedures at that time, the appeal period for all matters on the tape having expired. Question (6): I cannot agree that the erasing of the tape recording by the Taxation Board of Review in May 1980 is attributable to incompetence or was done for more sinister reasons. CRS had no interest or involvement in the erasing of the tape recording by the Taxation Board of Review. The tape recordings used by CRS to prepare a transcript of Mr Hancock's matter had been erased by CRS some months earlier. In July 1980, following an investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman of a complaint by Mr Hancock that tape recordings of his matter had been tampered with, the Ombudsman advised Mr Hancock that his enquiries did not support the complaint made by Mr Hancock. The Ombudsman also advised Mr Hancock that the tape recording retained by the Taxation Board of Review had been erased in accordance with normal practice, upon the expiration of the appeal period for matters recorded on that tape. Question (7): Although it is understood that in early May 1980 the Taxation Board of Review did erase the tape recording in its possession, the precise date of that erasure is not known by my Department. (Question No. 1458) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 21 October 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment been approached by the Magnetic Island ``Island Voice Committee'' about the proposed development in Nelly Bay, Magnetic Island, by Magnetic Keys. (2) Was a special lease granted by the Queensland Government to Bayvista P/L to enable them to prepare an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). (3) Is the EIS now ready for submission to the Queensland Government for the granting of a development lease. (4) Is the area proposed for development approximately one-third of Nelly Bay, in the Central Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. (5) If the Magnetic Keys proposal is to build breakwaters, excavate and reclaim the total area which is in the Marine Park below Low Water Mark, will that require the approval of the GBRMP. (6) Will more of the Reef be lost as sand and silt accumulate to the west of the proposed breakwaters. (7) What action is the Minister prepared to take to protect the GBRMP. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) I understand that the Queensland Government granted Special Lease 47928 to Bayvista P/L for the purposes of carrying out an environmental impact study and that the Special Lease was granted in July 1985 and was valid for 3 years. (3) I am advised that the environmental impact study was submitted to the Queensland Government in July 1986 and that further information was requested by the Queensland Government. (4) Yes. That section of the proposed development are below low water mark would be in the Central Section of the Marine Park. This Section is currently unzoned. A zoning plan is expected to come into effect in mid-1987. (5) Yes. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations provide that construction works as contemplated in the proposal may not be carried out in an unzoned area of the Marine Park without the permission of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (6) No approach has been made to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority regarding permission for this proposal. If an approach is made, the Authority will carefully examine all implications of the proposal, including any potential loss of the Reef, prior to making any decisions regarding the proposal. (7) Any applications for development within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are considered in accordance with the Regulations under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. The Regulations provide that protection of the Marine Park shall be of prime concern when considering such applications. (Question No. 1476) Senator Newman asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) Can the Minister advise why it is that single defence personnel without family who do not live in defence accommodation are not being allowed full removals on posting, and why it is that single public servants without family who live in private accommodation are allowed full removals on posting. (2) Can the Minister advise what action it is intended to take to see that this discrimination against single defence personnel without family is removed. (See answer to Question without Notice, Hansard, 16 October 1986 p. 1470) Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The arrangements provided for Defence and Australian Public Service personnel for removals on posting are set out in the answer of the Minister for Defence to Question No. 1475. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission established by the recently enacted Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 has wide power to receive and investigate complaints of discrimination contrary to the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the international instruments annexed to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act. A member of the Defence Force who considered that any aspects of the arrangements applicable to the member's removal on posting were discriminatory in terms of any of these provisions would be entitled to lodge a complaint with the Commission. (Question No. 1524) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at Qantas Airways Limited, which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at Qantas Airways Limited while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Aviation of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) During 1986 the management of Qantas airways Limited pursued changes in work practices involving ground engineer-mechanics, technical aircrew and cabin attendants. (2) Qantas has commenced an investigation to properly identify and eventually review work and management practices across the entire spectrum of the organisation. (3) and (4) Once the Company has identified those practices that hinder the efficient operation of the airline or that lead to unnecessary cost in its operations, it will begin detailed negotiations with employees and unions to remove such practices. (5) Qantas envisages that the review into work practices has the potential for significant benefits to its operation in the longer term. It foresees an improvement to its on-time performance leading to better cost efficiencies whilst at the same time providing a better quality service both in passenger operations and cargo handling. (Question No. 1528) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 November 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force in the Australian National Airlines Commission and subsidiaries, which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at the Australian National Airlines Commission and subsidiaries, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Aviation of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Australian airlines, has, over the past several months, developed a program to identify restrictive work practices within its organisation, and consultation has taken place at the work place and with local union officials being involved where appropriate. (3) and (4) Australian airlines management is arranging a meeting with representatives of all major unions represented within the company where restrictive work practices will be discussed and a plan for progressive review will be developed. (5) Australian airlines is committed to the elimination of inefficient practices and believes that its program will produce beneficial results. (Question No. 1550) Senator Sheil asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: (1) What percentage of all currently held Senior Commercial Pilot Licences and Airline Transport Pilot Licences are granted to the holders on the basis of being the holder of the equivalent or higher overseas pilot certificate and in which countries were these qualifications obtained, since in reply to Question on Notice No. 1335 (Hansard, 9 October 1986, p. 1156), the Minister for Aviation implied, but did not state, that this information was not held by the Department of Aviation. (2) What percentage of past or present Department of Aviation staff have Australian Licences granted on the basis of foreign qualifications. (3) If the Department of Aviation does not have this information, why not, and how can the Department justify such a cavalier attitude to safety as to grant Australian Transport Pilot Licences and Senior Commercial Pilot Licences to the holders of overseas qualifications without keeping a record of what it was doing. (4) Why was the practice of granting licences to holders of equivalent or higher foreign qualifications discontinued. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Department of Aviation does hold information on every pilot who has been allowed some exemption against the usual licence requirements on the basis of foreign qualifications. However the information is held on the individual Flight Crew Licence History files and is not readily available in the form sought by the honourable Senator. To provide the advice sought every SCPL and ATPL file in Australia would need to be manually examined. I am afraid that development of statistics of this kind is not felt to be the optimum use of scarce departmental resources. (3) The information is held but not in a form that would assist the honourable Senator. I can assure him that my Department takes a most responsible approach to these matters and exemptions from Australian requirements are only granted after a stringent examination of each application. Full details of these decisions are then recorded on each individual's licence file. (4) This practice has not been discontinued. Exemptions from some Australian licence requirements are still granted where it can be demonstrated that the applicant has an appropriate level of foreign training and experience. (Question No. 1561) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 3 December 1986: (1) Is the Minister for Territories aware of the situation which presently exists in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands where Mr John Clunies Ross, Jnr, his wife Vicky, and his young family who live on Home Island, are being denied access to the power supply which is supplied to all other Islanders. (2) Is the Minister aware that about a fortnight ago, the Clunies Ross' generator which provides their home with power for lights, refrigeration and their water pump, broke down, and in spite of being given a loan of a small generator, which provides enough power for lights and refrigeration, the family is still having to draw water, by hand, from their well. (3) Why are Mr Clunies Ross and his wife, and family being victimised in this way, that is, being denied access to the community source of power. (4) What action does the Minister propose to take to see that the family, who are Australian citizens, are treated equally with other residents of the Cocos Islands, and are provided with access to the community power supply. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) A portable generator belonging to the Administration has been loaned to the Clunies-Ross family to supply most of their electrical power, until the Clunies-Ross electricity generator is repaired. That portable generator cannot run the water pump, but the Minister has advised that a water pump compatible with the Administration generator was flown to the Territory on the air charter of 9 December 1986 and installed on 10 December. (3) There is no question of victimisation. It should be pointed out that the Council's powers under the Local Government Ordinance 1979 do not extend to the Clunies-Ross property. The electricity produced by the Council's generator is used in buildings serving the needs of the Cocos Malay community to which the Council is responsible. In peak periods there is no excess capacity. The Council can, with the approval of the Administrator, execute a work or undertaking, such as the supply of electricity, outside the Kampong area, and the Council has agreed to reconsider the Clunies-Ross request when it has additional generating capacity. (4) The Minister does not see any need to intervene in this matter. The Commonwealth has no authority to direct the Council in its functions as supplier of municipal services on Home Island. It would not be appropriate for the Minister to attempt to influence the Council in relation to the exercise of its municipal powers. (Question No. 1563) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 December 1986: (1) Is the Attorney-General aware of a scheme promoted by Australian Wine Commodity Cellaring Pty Ltd, by which young wine is purchased and cellared. (2) Could such purchases become a vehicle for speculative investment and if so does the Attorney-General believe that such dealing should be brought within the scope of securities legislation. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am advised that the National Companies and Securities Commission became aware of the scheme promoted by this company on 3 December 1986 and is seeking further details on the matter. I also understand that the Commission is, at the same time, examining another similar scheme. (2) Until the further information sought by the Commission becomes available I am not in a position to comment on whether the scheme presently is, or is the type of scheme which should be brought, within the scope of the companies and securities legislation. (Question No. 1565) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 December 1986: (1) Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of a scheme promoted by Australian Wine Commodity Cellaring Pty Ltd by which young wine is purchased and cellared. (2) Does the Minister believe that this will have a beneficial effect on the Australian Wine Industry. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: While I am aware of a scheme promoted by Australian Wine Commodity Cellaring Pty Ltd involving the purchasing and cellaring of wine I would not wish to comment on the specific commercial aspects of this scheme. I would however like to take this opportunity to clarify some misconceptions surrounding the current taxation treatment of wine stocks and comment generally on the concept of the scheme. From time to time the wine industry has claimed that it is being taxed on its stocks. This is simply not the case. Under Section 28 of the Income Tax Assessment Act the value of trading stock of any business is taken into account in assessing taxable income. However, if a winemaker elects to value stock at `cost' under Section 31 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, the year-by-year effect of that stock on taxable income is neutral and there can be no income tax payable on that stock until it is sold. The vast majority of Australian wine is currently sold in bulk form in casks and flagons which require little maturation. Any scheme which would provide an incentive to winemakers to increase production of premium quality wine and help redress the uneven growth in wine sales, which has been largely confined to bulk wine, should be beneficial and is to be encouraged. Moreover, with winemakers increasingly looking to export markets for their wine as domestic market growth continues to slow down, premium quality wines provide the best opportunity to capitalise on export potential and promote Australia's image as a quality wine producer. Senator Ryan —On 7 October 1986 (Hansard, page 882) Senator Elstob asked me a question without notice concerning bridging courses for Aboriginal school leavers between current education and further study or opportunities in the work force, whether there are such courses in all States and whether Aboriginals in rural areas have access to these resources. I undertook to provide details of actual institutions offering those courses. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Bridging courses for Aboriginals are not always specifically designed for school leavers but courses in all States and the Northern Territory provide for the post-school needs for all Aboriginals including those who have just left school. A list of institutions currently offering such courses is attached. NEW SOUTH WALES University of Wollongong, Macarthur Institute of Higher Education, Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education, Newcastle College of Advanced Education, (All have tertiary bridging courses designed to lead participants into tertiary entry at the institutions concerned.) University of New England, (Developing a bridging course to lead to entry into the University, TAFE and CAE). TAFE 18 week `General Skills' courses for Aboriginals 15 years plus are offered at. (These courses are employment skills orientated.) Armidale, Bathurst, Bourke, Cobar, Peak Hill, Tamworth, Tumut, Wellington, Wyong, South West Rocks, Griffith, Walcha, Albury, Cummeragunja, Tranby College, Condobolin, Gunnedah, Leeton, Maitland, Narrandera, Nowra. 36 week certificate entrance courses for Aboriginals 16 years plus: Armidale, Condobolin, Gunnedah, Maitland, Moree, Narrandera, Nowra, Tamworth, Quirindi. 36 week preparatory courses for Aboriginals 18 years plus: Tranby, Bathurst, Narrandera. CTEC Equity program funded N.S.W. Institute of Technology/Tranby College-link course for Aboriginal students. University of Wollongong-bridging course for Aboriginal students. VICTORIA Sunraysia College of TAFE, Mildura-Wimpatya Community Shepparton TAFE, Shepparton-Minimbah Community Monash University, Melbourne-Monash Orientation Scheme for Aborigines. QUEENSLAND Cairns TAFE, Rockhampton TAFE, Kangaroo Point TAFE. Access courses designed as 3 semester flexible program aimed at preparing students for further education or employment. Approximately 20 per cent of students from rural areas; accommodation available in Aboriginal hostels. SOUTH AUSTRALIA TAFE Salisbury Narrunga Elizabeth Community Education courses to prepare adults and school leavers for a new stage of Education. Aboriginal Community College, Pre-Tertiary course for adult applicants. South Australian CAE, Aboriginal Teacher Education Program 12 week orientation course to prepare teacher training applicants for the formal teacher award courses. South Australian CAE, Magill and Salisbury Campus and Roseworthy Agricultural College Orientation programs to prepare students in Aboriginal Enclaves for the formal award courses available at these institutions. CTEC-Equity Program Aboriginal Community College/South Australian College of Advanced Education-Pre-Tertiary Bridging Program for Aborigines. South Australian College of Advance Education-External Studies Program for Isolated Special Entry Students (special entry and Aboriginal students in remote areas). WESTERN AUSTRALIA Western Australian Institute of Technology Aboriginal Bridging Course Western Australian CAE Churchland Campus, Kununurra (off campus), Bunbury Institute Advanced Education Entry Certificate. Kalgoorlie College, General Studies Hedland College Advanced General Studies Above courses are bridging to Higher Education. TAFE Aboriginal Access courses at: Fremantle, Balga, Leederville, Thornlie, Midland, Geraldton, Albany, Bunbury, Esperance, Broome Technical Education Centre. Hedland College, General Studies Western Australian College of Advanced Education, General Education Certificate (Above two courses are bridging to further employment or study usually to TAFE level courses and courses for rural students.) CTEC-Equity program funded Western Australian College of Advanced Education-Pre-Tertiary studies for Aborigines Western Australian Institute of Technology-Bridging Programs for Aboriginal Studies TASMANIA Launceston Technical College, Bridging courses Hobart Technical College, Launceston Technical College, Access courses NORTHERN TERRITORY Darwin Institute of Technology Aboriginal Task Force-Preliminary course; Pre-apprenticeship training Access centre (courses available to both Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals) Batchelor College-Access course (to teacher education) NT TAFE Bridging for further studies, Computer awareness, General-life and work skills, Tourism and hospitality, Livestock and station skills, Vocational preparation and participation, Project Read. Commonwealth Education Funds for special courses provided in communities as needs arise (often run in conjunction with NT TAFE). Senator Walsh —On 1 December 1986 (Hansard, page 3052) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications the following question without notice: In view of the Government's revised timetable for the introduction of extra commercial television services to regional Australia, will the deep freeze on new commercial and public radio licences be allowed to thaw a little during the next 18 months? Will the freeing of some planning resources mean that the radio licensing process will not remain frozen, as previously feared? Why has the chronic shortage of engineering staff in the Department of Communications received only mild and passing mention in the latest annual report when it has such a significant effect on the provision of radio and television services to all Australians? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In my speech to a departmental radio industry seminar on 30 October 1986, I stated that I expected to be in a position by the end of February 1987 to invite proposals for new licences in at least four regional areas. Planning for new FM services will be undertaken in accordance with priorities set out in my statements in the Parliament on 20 and 21 May 1986. As I noted then, the resources available in my Department are such that no new projects will be undertaken until the technical specifications for equalisation of commercial television services have been completed. the Department will continue to work on major planning projects-notably the clearance of Band II. The presence of television channels on Band II has been and remains the greatest single impediment to the expansion of FM services in regional areas. As a consequence, other projects are proceeding more slowly. Public radio proposals have been proceeding, albeit at a reduced rate. For example, during the period since May 1986 invitations for the establishment of the following public radio services were published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette: 27 May 1986-Rockingham W.A., Rockhampton Qld, Whyalla S.A. 9 September 1986-Fremantle W.A., Hay N.S.W. Since 1983 some 22 public radio stations have been licensed. The time has now come for effort to be diverted to develop the commercial radio sector. That does not mean work on public radio will cease; it must simply proceed at a rate which gives a balance between the various broadcasting sectors. In regard to the present shortage of engineers in my Department I should point out that the shortage of trained broadcasting engineers is a national problem. The Department has undertaken an extensive employment campaign to employ a large number of engineer class ones. However, it will take some time before these engineers are available and gain the relevant experience to have a significant impact on ongoing projects. In the meantime, training of these engineers does divert the effort of the experienced staff from planning work. (Question No. 1405) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) Can the Minister for Communications provide information as to what assurance can be given, in view of the Federal Government's decision to grant the 4th remote television licence to Imparja, that this television service will cater adequately for the needs of outback children, Aboriginal or otherwise. (2) What provisions is there, under the licence agreement to ensure that the service will cater for educational television programming. (3) Does the agreement specify the percentage of broadcast time which must be allocated to particular categories of programs; if so, what is the breakdown of the categories, and the percentage of broadcasting time allocated to each. (4) What provisions, if any, are included in the agreement for a review of the performance of the licensee. (5) In what languages will programs be broadcast. (6) Which Aboriginal dialects will be included in those to be broadcast, given that there are many tribes which do not speak Aranda. (7) In view of the size of the permanent English speaking population, and the large number of tourists constantly in the Territory, who combined would make English the most widely spoken language in the broadcast area, what proportion of programs will be broadcast in the English language. Senator Walsh —The following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, has been supplied by the Minister for Communications: (1) The Tribunal's Children's Television Program Standards set minimum requirements for the broadcast of children's programs. In evidence to the Tribunal, Imparja noted ``the isolation experienced by many children and the special needs of Aboriginal children in the service area''. It stated that it will endeavour to exceed the Tribunals' requirements for pre-school children's programming and hopes to foster production of those programs aimed specifically at outback children (paragraph 4.152, 4th RCTS Report). (2) The licence was granted to Imparja with a condition relating to educational programming. It sets a minimum of 80 hours of educational programming per year during the 1st and 2nd years of operation, a minimum of 280 hours per year during the 3rd and 4th years of operation, a minimum of 560 hours per year during the 5th year of operation. (3) There are no conditions relating to program categories other than that relating to educational programming. However, all Tribunal Television Program Standards which apply to conventional terrestrial licences will apply to RCTS licences including Pre-School and Children's Television Standards, and those relating to drama quotas. Imparja has also given the Tribunal an undertaking to provide an adequate and comprehensive service, as required by s. 83 (5) of the Broadcasting Act. (4) The Tribunal intends to monitor all RCTS licensees regularly throughout the 5 year licence period through meetings and progress reports. Several meetings have been held already with the three other RCTS licensees (paragraph 5.57, 4th RCTS Report). This is in addition to the periodic renewal of the licence required by the Broadcasting Act. Renewal of a licence includes review of the licensee's performance and compliance with the Act, Standards and other conditions of licence. (5 & 6) All programs will be broadcast in English other than the news which will be broadcast in 4 languages-English and 3 Aboriginal languages. The Aboriginal languages for Central Australia will be Walprie, Arrente and Pitjanjatjara. The Northern Land Council is currently deciding in what 3 languages (in addition to English) news programs should be broadcast in the Top End, however it will probably include Kriol, which is spoken widely across northern Australia (paragraph 4.149, 4th RCTS Report). (7) There will be 1 hour per week of specifically Aboriginal programming and 5-10 minutes in the news bulletins. All other programming (expected hours are 56 hours per week in the first year and expanding thereafter), i.e. 98% will be normal ``commercial'' programming broadcast in English (paragraphs 4.65 and 4.153, 4th RCTS Report). (Question No. 1407) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) How much did it cost the ABC to co-sponsor the West Bank poll of Palestinians as reported in `Four Corners' on 8 and 13 September 1986. (2) Were these costs shared equally among the 3 sponsors and who were the 3 sponsors. (3) Did the ABC prepare the questions for the West Bank survey and supervise the poll; if not, who prepared the questions and who conducted the poll. (4) Was the poll conducted by door-knock; if so, were the people surveyed aware of who was conducting the poll. (5) Can the Minister for Communications make available the survey questions and the results of this poll. (6) Did the ABC initiate this poll; if not, who first brought up the idea of undertaking this survey, and when was it initiated. (7) How many Palestinians in the West Bank were surveyed. (8) Were any conditions placed on the ABC in order to facilitate obtaining an interview with Yassar Arafat; if so, what were these conditions and who required them. (9) Did any members or representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation see sections of the `Four Corners' program prior to its screening in Australia. (10) Did the ABC initially contact Mr Ali Kazak in order to arrange the interview with Yassar Arafat, or was the initial approach to Yassar Arafat made in the Middle East, with Mr Ali Kazak entering into negotiations at a later date. Senator Walsh —The following answer to the honourable senator's question, based upon information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has been supplied by the Minister for Communications: 1. The ABC's contribution to the cost of the poll was $US2,100. 2. The costs were shared equally among the three sponsors-`Newsday', a New York newspaper, `Al Fajr', a Palestinian language newspaper on Israel's West Bank, and the ABC. 3. The questions were constructed in discussion between several parties from the sponsoring media organisations and those conducting the poll. The poll was conducted in the field by Dr Mohammed Shadid, Head of the Political Science Faculty at An Najar University in Nablus on the West Bank. Dr Shadid woured together with two other distinguished pollsters on the Survey, Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli academic and former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem, who runs the West Bank Data Project; and Professor Rick Seltzer from Howard University, Washington DC. 4. The poll was conducted by door-knock and the people surveyed were aware of who was conducting the poll. 5. Yes. Copies have been lodged at the Table Office. 6. The ABC did not initiate this poll. The proposed poll had been under discussion for some time on the West Bank and was known to local foreign correspondents as a transnational media project. 7. 1,024 face-to-face interviews took place on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. 8. No conditions were placed on the ABC in connection with the interview with Yassar Arafat. 9. No members or representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation saw the `Four Corners' program or sections of it prior to its screening in Australia. 10. `Four Corners' sources of information and journalistic contacts are confidential. However, discussions with Mr Ali Kazak have taken place at various times as they have with many other foreign representatives in Australia. (Question No. 1535) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1986: (1) What has been the total production of the Australian rice industry in the years 1984-85 and 1985-86. (2) How much rice, of this production, has found its way onto the export market, and which countries are involved. (3) How many people are employed in the industry in-(a) production; (b) distribution; and (c) processing of rice based products. (4) In view of reported uncertainty of the future of the industry towards its future, what measures are in place, or projected through the Industries Assistance Commission to give help either now or in the future. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Production of Australian paddy rice was 864,000 tonnes in 1984-85 and 688,000 tonnes in 1985-86. (2) On average, between 85 and 90 percent of Australian rice production is exported. Since July 1985 the country breakdown of exports has been confidential. In 1984-85, however Australia exported rice to 49 countries. Major markets in that year were Papua New Guinea (112,757 tonnes), Spain (60,280 tonnes), Hong Kong (54,595 tonnes), Saudi Arabia (25,042 tonnes) and Fiji (17,783 tonnes). Rice harvested in one year is generally exported in the next. In the process of milling rice there is a 40 percent weight loss. Exports of Australian milled rice in 1984-85 and 1985-86 were 327,000 tonnes and 499,000 tonnes (preliminary estimate) respectively. (3) Employment data requested are not available. In its submission to the recent IAC inquiry, the N.S.W. rice industry cited a study based on the most recently available census data (1980-81) which estimated direct employment in the industry in that State for 1980-81 at 3,170 (excludes employment in processing of rice based products). Comparable data are not available in respect of Queensland. The industry in that State accounts for around 3% of Australian production and mainly supplies the domestic market. (4) A reference was sent on 25 August 1986 to the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) requiring an inquiry and reports on the industry's short and longer term assistance needs. The IAC's report on short term assistance released on 31 October 1986 is currently being considered by the Government. The final report is due in October 1987. (Question No. 1537) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1986: (1) What is the current (a) level; and (b) balance of trade between Australia and New Zealand. (2) What was the (a) level; and (b) balance of trade in the financial years 1984-85 and 1985-86. (3) What trade negotiations are currently taking place or are contemplated between the two countries, and what commodities are involved. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The information sought is outlined in the following table: AUSTRALIAN TRADE WITH NEW ZEALAND 1984-85 1985-86 4 months YTD October 1986 ($A million) Exports to New Zealand 1,541.6 1,5407.6 563.8 Imports from New Zealand 1,104.2 1,454.5 462.7 Balance of Trade +437.4 +53.1 +101.1 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (3) Australia-New Zealand trade is covered by the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, which provides for the progressive removal of most tariffs by 1988 and of all tariff quotas and quantitative restrictions on trans-Tasman trade by 1995 at the latest. At the time the CER Trade Agreement was negotiated, finalisation of liberalisation arrangements for a limited number of products, including some which are subject to industry plans in both countries, was temporarily deferred. However, in accordance with the Agreement requirements, liberalisation arrangements for all but four product categories have now been agreed. The product categories for which liberalisation programs remain to be negotiated or formally concluded are tobacco and tobacco products, writing instruments, steel and apparel. Further arrangements for completing liberalisation of trans-Tasman trade in motor vehicles and components, which are subject to transitional arrangements, are to be determined when New Zealand reviews its motor vehicle policy towards the end of 1988. In addition the current CER arrangements for footwear are to be the subject of discussion in 1987 to determine the scope for accelerating the current liberalisation arrangements in view of new global arrangements in both countries. The arrangements applying to tyres are also to be reviewed by Australia in 1987 in light of New Zealand's revised Tyre Industry Development Plan. As provided for in the Agreement there is to be a general review of the CER Agreement in 1988. (Question No. 1564) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 December 1986: (1) Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of reports that Mr Lloyd Edgecombe of the Australian Trade Commission has called for the use of Australian overseas aid funds to advantage Australian enterprises. (2) Would such a policy be consistent with our foreign policy objectives and what is the government's view of this proposal. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am aware of comments made by Mr Edgecombe in an address to a recent AUSTRADE-sponsored seminar in Sydney, to the effect that the prospects for involving Australian industry in developmental projects in the Asian-Pacific region could be improved if more Australian aid funds were made available to assist such projects and Australian participation in them. I note that Mr Edgecombe added, quite properly, that the issue of Australia's aid priorities is a political question. (2) In my statement on Australia's overseas aid program in Parliament on 28 November 1985, I emphasised that the Government encourages Australian industry participation in the aid program ``so long as equity and effectiveness remain primary considerations and so long as . . . the aid given [is] good for the recipient''. The Government has, quite consciously, three main objectives in mind in framing the aid program. The first and most important of these is to promote economic and social progress in developing countries, especially those in our neighbourhood. The second and third objectives of the aid program are to promote Australia's political-strategic and commercial interests respectively. The Government wishes to ensure that Australian industry participates in the provision of Australian aid overseas, and I am sure that most Australians would prefer that Australian aid is just that: goods and services provided by Australians. The Government is currently reviewing some of its development assistance programs to establish whether they can better assist efficient Australian industry but still be consistent with their over-riding objective of promoting economic growth and social development in the developing countries of our Asian-Pacific neighbourhood. The results of this examination will be made public at the appropriate time. (Question No. 1572) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 4 December 1986: (1) How does the Minister for Education justify the offer by the Federal Government to fund a mere 20 places at the University College of the Northern Territory, at a cost of $8,500 per place, which would mean that the Federal Government's expenditure on universities in the Northern Territory would amount to only $170,000 given that the national per capita expenditure on universities is $88.62, and on that basis the Northern Territory with a population of 150 000 would be entitled to funding in excess of $13m. (2) Does the minister believe that this figure, which would mean that the per capita funding of universities in the Northern Territory would be $1.13 as opposed to the national per capital expenditure of $88.62, is adequate. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is an follows: (1) and (2) No offer was made by the Commonwealth to fund 20 places at the University College of the Northern Territory. However, the Commonwealth did offer to fund 20 places at the Darwin Institute of Technology (DIT) by the provision of $115,000 recurrent funds in 1987; this offer was accepted by the Northern Territory Government. An additional 40 places earmarked for Aboriginal students are also to be funded in 1987, 30 at Batchelor College and 10 at the Darwin Institute of Technology. By the time additional places were being considered for the Darwin Institute of Technology in 1987, the Northern Territory Government had decided to proceed unilaterally with the establishment of the University College on a separate site. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission had to take account of the impact of the establishment of the University College on enrolments at the Darwin Institute of Technology. If the previous negotiations had succeeded in locating university students on the DIT site, the number of funded places would have been significantly greater. (Question No. 1574) Senator Zakharov asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice on 9 December 1986: (1) What is the total of IMF loans recently directed to Chile. (2) What conditions are placed on the way in which those funds are to be disbursed. (3) What specific projects are to be funded and what is the allocations of money to each project. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There has been no recent IMF loan to Chile. However, on 20 November 1986 the Executive Board of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (The World Bank) approved a US$250 million structural adjustment loan (SAL) to Chile. Structural adjustment loans are quick-disbursing loans designed to support the economic policy and institutional changes necessary to reduce current account deficits while maintaining the development effort. (2) The loan will support the government's program to accelerate exports and domestic savings so as to continue the recovery of economic growth and employment. The loan will finance the CIF (cost, insurance and freight) cost of eligible imports, subject to documentary evidence that they have been paid for on or after loan signing. Public and private sector imports will be eligible, except for military equipment and luxury consumer goods. Procurement under the loan will be in accordance with the Bank's Procurement Guidelines of May 1985 which include the application of international competitive bidding. The Bank will have access to all detailed documentation relating to withdrawal applications under the loan, and will review these as appropriate. The loan will be disbursed in two tranches: US$150 million immediately, and US$100 million after a six-month performance review. (3) As this is a structural adjustment loan, it is not allocated to any specific projects, but helps finance imports in support of an approved structural program. (Question No. 1577) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 10 December 1986: (1) When was the responsibility for the printing of stamps transferred from the Note Issue Department of the Reserve Bank to private contractors. (2) On whose initiative, and for what reason or reasons, was this decision taken. (3) How many tenderers were there for the printing of stamps. (4) What conditions relating to secure operating and storage facilities for the production of stamps did tenderers have to meet. (5) For how long was the initial tender let, and on what grounds was more than one successful tenderer chosen. (6) What checks on tenderers did Australia Post make before awarding the contracts. (7) What requirements does Australia Post have for notification of changes in directorship or ownership of the successful tenderers. (8) What upgrading of operating and storage facilities has Australia Post insisted upon of the successful tenderers since the contract was let. (9) Who are the current directors of the successful tenderers. (10) Who exercises the controlling interest in each successful tenderer. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (1) The transfer took place between 1978 and 1980. (2) The Reserve Bank gave notice to Australia Post that it was changing premises from Collingwood to Craigieburn (in Victoria), and that because its equipment was outdated and it did not wish to reinvest in new equipment, it could no longer print stamps for Australia Post. (3) A public call for expressions of interest resulted in nine responses. After initial assessment and trials, two of these were asked to submit tenders. (4) Security conditions were contained in a specification drawn up by Australia Post's Chief Security Officer on consultation with the Reserve Bank and Commonwealth Police. These specifications are security sensitive and cannot be made public. (5) The initial contracts were for five years. Two contractors were chosen for reasons of competition which helped keep prices lower than they otherwise would have been and to ensure supply, particularly when demand was beyond the capacity of one firm. (6) Trials were conducted to ensure firms had the necessary technical capability, and investigations were made into their commercial viability, ownership etc. (7) No part of the contract may be sub-let or assigned or a controlling interest in the company sold without the approval of Australia Post. (8) Security specifications have been reviewed and slightly modified since contracts were first let. (9) CPE Australia Ltd B. M. Pontifex N. S. Beilby D. J. Bryden Leigh-Mardon Pty Ltd M. J. Turner J. Cameron D. N. Padgham A. R. F. Hobson A. H. Carr V. J. Bowring (10) CPE Australia Ltd is a subsidiary of ACI Australia Ltd. Leigh-Mardon Pty is a subsidiary of Amatil Limited Australia. (Question No. 1580) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 10 December 1986: (1) How has Australia Post tightened its procedures for ensuring that stamp printing plates are destroyed promptly after use, that spoils are securely stored until destroyed, and that trial run sheets are not released to the general public or to philatelists in the last 5 years. (2) On how many occasions has Australia Post investigated a mishap relating to the destruction of stamp printing plates, or an unauthorised release of spoils or trial run sheets in each of the last 5 years. (3) What conclusions have been drawn as a result of each such investigation, and what action has been taken. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (1) These procedures are kept under review and have been slightly modified when considered necessary, but details of these modifications are security sensitive and cannot be made public. (2) There have been no mishaps relating to the destruction of printing plates. There has been one case of a proof sheet appearing on the market in the last five years. (3) Results of investigations were inconclusive and, in the particular circumstances, no special action was considered necessary. (Question No. 1585) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 10 December 1986: (1) What regular reports are post offices and agencies required to make of stamps presented to Australia Post for a cash refund. (2) Are there restrictions on the amounts that can be paid as cash refunds by difference types of postal outlets. (3) Are there circumstances in which Australia Post requires some sort of investigation before a large amount is paid out as a cash refund. (4) What has been the total face value of stamps presented to Australia Post for a cash refund in each State or Territory, for each financial year since Vesting day. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (1) Reports are not required as cash refunds are not made at post offices or post office agencies. Applications for repurchase must be directed to a central point in each State. (2) Cash refunds from the repurchase points are limited to the face value of 200 base rate stamps. The current limit for a cash refund is $72. Larger amounts are payable by cheque. (3) Investigations, which centre on the source and ownership of the stamps, are conducted when large amounts are tendered for repurchase. (4) The following table shows the value of stamps repurchased since Vesting Day: VALUE OF POSTAGE STAMPS REPURCHASED ($ million) Year NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. Total 1975/76... .037 .167 .015 .003 .006 .032 .260 1976/77... .032 .178 .011 .006 .006 .039 .272 1977/78... .039 .196 .005 .004 .005 .021 .270 1978/79... .032 .213 .011 .004 .008 .034 .302 1979/80... .046 .169 .010 .002 .005 .027 .259 1980/81... .187 .172 .038 .003 .047 .036 .483 1981/82... .279 .341 .089 .026 .076 .046 .857 1982/83... .383 .404 .116 .038 .149 .039 1.129 1983/84... .362 .314 .112 .101 .147 .050 1.086 1984/85... .374 .371 .178 .122 .167 .050 1.262 1985/86... .656 .938 .205 .126 .345 .098 2.368 Senator Ryan —On 20 November 1986 (Hansard, page 2605) Senator Vanstone asked me the following questions without notice: (i) Has the State Government (South Australia) communicated to the Federal Government its intention to increase administrative charges related to PEP? (ii) What consultation has taken place between the Commonwealth and the South Australian Government on the management of PEP? (iii) What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the State does not milk Commonwealth or PEP students? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (i) Yes. In 1986 South Australia allocated approximately $166,000 to administrative support services and on-costs directly related to the Program in government schools. Estimates in relation to 1987 indicate that $273,000 will be allocated to administrative support services and on-costs. Administrative support services cover both clerical and educational support, as well as travel and accommodation costs incurred in delivering PEP to schools. No significant change is expected for PEP in TAFE. (ii) Structures for the Participation and Equity Program were put in place following consultation with State Governments. The Program now operates within the parameters of detailed administrative guidelines. (iii) I have asked my officers to hold discussions with appropriate State officials to ensure that all administrative costs are fully justified.