Thursday, 22 October 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: But for a High Court decision narrowly favouring the Federal Government, 20,000 years old archaeological cave sites near the Franklin River, Tasmania, would have been destroyed, like a United Kingdom Government unable to stop a Wiltshire authority from clearing Stonehenge for a freeway. Constitutional protection for historical and environmental assets is needed. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution so that the Federal Government has the bounden constitutional duty, which any citizen may legally require it to perform and a right superior to state and local governments, to set above the commercial advantage of one generation, protect and restore all we hold in trust for the future-including relics, sites, features, areas, wildlife, buildings or things of Aboriginal and other historical, cultural, architectural, scientific, aesthetic, ecological or environmental importance and-to care for the maintenance of the balance of nature, manage land, marine and atmospheric use so as to avoid their degradation and act nationally and internationally in any matter seen as related to these including-to prevent military and commercial use of uranium and derivatives, beach and related mining; to preserve Heritage Areas, The Great Barrier Reef Region at least as originally defined in the 1975 Act and extended into Torres Strait. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Puplick (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the proposed Australia Card is an intrusion into the rights of the individual in a free and democratic country. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government not proceed with this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 1,004 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australia Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID card would be enormous, outweighing the gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Chapman (from 1,361 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: 1. We reject in principle the need for a national ID card on the basis that it will be a gross violation of individual liberty. 2. We reject the notion that the government can claim a mandate for the proposed legislation and state categorically it does not reflect our will. 3. We believe that, as with the proposed Bill of Rights legislation, the government's methods and arguments in promoting this legislation have been under-handed and undemocratic. 4. We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation is anti-God and that its implementation will result in further attacks on individual freedom and responsibility, the family and the Church and that the real intent is the promotion of a powerful secular humanist ``big brother'' government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should together with the House of Representatives take action to reject this proposed legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chapman (from 47 citizens). To The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australia Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing any gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Crowley (from 251 citizens). To The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australia Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing any gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Teague (from 206 citizens). To The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australia Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing any gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Vanstone (from 232 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 90 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 Australia Card (2) That this national identity system will be intrusive, will not appreciably combat tax or social security fraud, is authoritarian and alien to the Australian way of life Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in parliament assembled, should: Urge the government to institute a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card; 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; 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; That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax 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 Chaney (from 149 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 Chapman (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; 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; That we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax 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 Vanstone (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-86 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Harradine (from 152 citizens) and Reynolds (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, call on the Federal Government to give notice to terminate the lease of the US base at Pine Gap before October 1986. We believe that in the interests of world peace and the Australian people, this lease should be terminated and the base closed because Pine Gap is a spy base and a war base: Since it was opened in 1969, it has eavesdropped on Australian telephone and telex communications. Information obtained in this way was used by the CIA to destabilise the Whitlam Government in late 1975. It provides communication facilities for CIA activity in countries throughout the world, much of which is connected with overthrowing other country's governments. Last year it became clear Pine Gap was spying on Greece. The electronic and photographic information its satellites receive is used to select nuclear targets in the territory of the Soviet Union and its allies. Many US military activities short of nuclear war are also co-ordinated by Pine Gap. These include the war against Vietnam and the invasion of Lebanon by US marines in 1984. Pine Gap spends only a tiny percentage of its time monitoring arms control agreements, and even then the data gathered is so top-secret Australia has no access to it. Pine Gap's role will be expanded under Reagan's Star Wars scheme to extend the arms race to outer space, threatening the existence of our planet. by Senator Powell (from 1,919 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains a satellite communication dish, that sends to the United States the information, gathered by the `joint high frequency stations' in Australia and New Zealand, indicating the position of the Soviet naval ships and submarines. This information from Watsonia is combined with data from satellites and underwater sensors to calculate the location of the Soviet vessels with great accuracy. 2. This would make it possible for the US nuclear naval ships and submarines to destroy all nuclear Soviet naval ships and submarines, while the US nuclear submarines, naval ships and bombers launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. 3. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 4. The `Joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `Joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 72 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act 1942, and for related purposes. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —At the request of Senator Cooney and pursuant to Standing Order 109a, I give notice that at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting Senator Cooney will withdraw Business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1, 2 and 3 standing in his name for the next day of sitting for disallowance of the Customs Regulations (Amendment), the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 and the Public Service Board Determination No. 21 of 1987. I seek leave to make a very short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —Senator Cooney was good enough to give these protective notices before the new Regulations and Ordinances Committee was appointed. Ministers have now written to the Committee explaining matters which were drawn to their attention by the Committee. The new Committee is pleased with the outcome. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short explanation of the scrutiny, as well as the Committee's correspondence on these matters. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- 1. Customs Regulations (Amendment) (S.R. 1987 No. 72) These regulations retrospectively restored certain goods to eligibility for a Tariff Concession Order. A period of retrospectivity of 2 years was involved. The Committee sought an explanation for this extremely long period. The Minister has explained that an administrative oversight resulted in certain goods not being exempted from duty as was intended. The Minister decided to exempt these goods on a retrospective basis to the benefit of the relevant importers who will obtain a refund. The Committee takes a serious view of retrospectivity beyond 6 months and it has long been the Committee's policy to report to the Senate any restrospectivity beyond 2 years. In this case the Committee is satisfied that the retrospectivity will be beneficial. The Committee remains concerned about the use of legislative retrospectivity to correct administrative oversights. It should not be looked upon as a panacea for administrative mistakes. The Committee will continue to report retrospectivity to the Senate. 2. Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 16 of 1987) Certain discretionary decisions did not appear to be subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in circumstances where adverse decisions could cause hardship. In his letter of 21 October 1982 the Minister for Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, the Hon. John Brown, M.P. has agreed to amend the Ordinance to make these decisions reviewable. 3. Public Service Board Determination No. 21 of 1987 The determination in question gave Departmental Secretaries power to take certain management decisions ``in the public interest''. The Committee thought this was a vague criterion more appropriate for Ministers. The Department has now agreed to replace it so that decisions will be taken ``in the interests of the [Public] Service''. Those interests will be expressly specified in terms of skills, costs, efficiency and related factors. PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA The Senate STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES 26 May 1987 Senator the Hon. John Button Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce Parliament House CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 14 May 1987 the Committee considered the Customs Regulations (Amendment) being Statutory Rules 1987 No. 72 tabled in the Senate on 11 May 1987. It would be helpful if you would clarify a particular matter for the Committee. The Explanatory Statement indicates that, with retrospective effect to 1 July 1985, the Regulations restore rubber coated work gloves to eligibility for a Tariff Concession Order. The restoration is stated to be pursuant to a recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission in its recent report on the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industry in Australia. As you know the Committee carefully monitors the use of retrospectivity in delegated legislation to determine whether an unreasonably long period of retrospectivity is provided for, and to assess whether, in operation, the retrospectivity is prejudicial to the interests of any person. Where the expenditure of money is involved, the Committee's concern arises because of the need to balance the interests of fair treatment for individuals against the interests of parliamentary propriety when retrospective laws deny Parliament the opportunity to examine expenditure at the time and in the circumstances to which it relates. I recently made a statement to the Senate on the question of retrospectivity in delegated legislation which may be of interest to you (Senate Hansard, 12 April 1987, page 2628). In the present case, retrospectivity of almost 2 years is involved and there is a short explanation in the Explanatory Statement as to why such a lengthy period elapsed before the claims of rubber coated work gloves to potential tariff concession eligibility were once more recognised. It would, however, be very helpful for the Committee if you would explain in a little more detail than does the current Statement the background to the change in the Regulations, the general operation of Schedule 2 of the Principal Regulations and why 1 July 1985 came to be the date chosen for retrospective operation. Can you also assure the Committee that the retrospective effect of the Regulations will operate to the advantage of all relevant persons and not to the detriment of any persons other than the Commonwealth? Your advice on these questions would be very much appreciated by the Committee. Yours sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman Ministry of Industry, Technology and Commerce Minister for Science and Small Business Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 19 October 1987 Dear Senator Collins I write with regard to your letters dated 26 May 1987 and 9 October 1987 regarding queries concerning amendments to the Customs Regulations made by Statutory Rules 1987 No. 72, which retrospectively restored the ability of rubber coated work gloves to receive Tariff Concession Orders. The Tariff Concession System succeeded the Commercial By-Law System and came into effect on 1 July 1985. The laws governing the administration of the System can be found in Part XVA of the Customs Act. To enhance the efficiency of tariff concession administration a provision (section 269d) was inserted into the Act to allow goods declared by Regulation to be goods in respect of which a Tariff Concession Order shall not be made. Schedule 2 to the Customs Regulations identifies the goods in respect of which a Tariff Concession Order may not be made. The original listing was introduced on 1 July 1985 to coincide with the commencement of the Tariff Concession System. Column 3 of the Schedule lists exceptions to the exclusions. When the original Schedule was being framed it was recognised that specialist apparel such as gloves, mittens and mitts of the work type could not be entirely supplied by Australian manufacturers and should be specified in Column 3 as exceptions to the goods in respect of which Tariff Concession Orders could not be made. Due to an oversight such goods classified to Item 60.06 of the Customs Tariff were not made exceptions to Item 10 of the Schedule. Following representations from an importer of industrial apparel and in view of the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on the Textile, Clothing and Footwear industries regarding the Tariff Concession System exclusion schedule, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce agreed that the error should be corrected. The date chosen for retrospective operation to accord consistent treatment to all types of gloves, mittens and mitts of the work type was 1 July 1985, the date which was originally intended for concessional treatment. The effect of the amendment is to allow an application for a Tariff Concession Order for chemical resistant rubber work gloves to be considered. The application will only be approved if the Comptroller-General of Customs is satisfied that concessional entry would not be to the detriment of Australian industry. Retrospective operation of any concession will allow all importers of such goods to obtain a refund of duties paid. Accordingly, the retrospective effect for the Regulations will effectively confer a benefit. Yours faithfully Barry Jones Senator Bob Collins Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA The Senate STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES 26 May 1987 The Hon. Gordon Scholes, M.P. Minister for Territories Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 14 May 1987 the Committee considered the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) Ordinance 1987, being A.C.T. Ordinance No. 16 of 1987 tabled in the Senate on 11 May 1987. Would you be good enough to assist the Committee with some questions it has concerning rights of review under the Ordinance. Firstly, the Committee noted that new section 57 of the Principal Ordinance provides for the method of calculation that is to be used to determine the amount of the payments to be made to an applicant in respect of long service leave. There appear to be certain discretionary elements in this otherwise mathematical process. Thus, in subparagraph 57 (1) (b) (ii), for the purposes of the calculation, the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board may determine a notional weekly average of the ordinary remuneration of the applicant in various circumstances. There appears to be no provision for review of disputed decisions made under this provision. Secondly, the Committee noted that under new subparagraph 56a (3) (d) (vi) the Board shall give advice as to whether or not the Board is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to payment for service in a reciprocating State or Territory. There appears to be no provision for review of the adverse exercise of this important discretion. Thirdly, the Committee noted the amendments being made to section 45 of the Principal Ordinance. Section 45 provides for removal of names from the Employees and Contractors Register and the subsequent re-registration of names in certain circumstances. These processes appear to contain important discretionary elements. Whether or not a person's name appears accurately in the Register impinges on the question of eligibility for payment under the scheme in the legislation. The adverse exercise of the discretions appears not to be subject to review. The Committee noted that the legislation does contain some important review rights. Thus, under paragraph 59 (1) (g) of the Principal Ordinance applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision by the Board ``refusing to make a payment to an applicant under section 55 or 56''. The Committee also noted that paragraph 28 (b) of the amendment Ordinance adds a new right to seek review of a discretionary decision refusing to authorise a payment to be made under section 56b (payments by a reciprocal authority on the Board's behalf). It may be that the present express right to review of an outright refusal to pay monies due, may not encompass a right to review the Board's agreement to pay a disputed sum determined by the calculation process referred to above. Equally if non-inclusion in the Register might result in the Board's refusal to pay, inclusion of errorous or misleading details might well result in the payment of a disputed sum. The Committee is at present inclined to the view that because of their discretionary elements, and because of the serious affect which adverse decisions could have on employees' rights, decisions made by the Board under sections 45 and 57 and subparagraph 56a (3) (d) (iv) should perhaps be made reviewable by the AAT. Your comments and advice on this proposition would be very much appreciated by the Committee. Your sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman MINISTER FOR THE ARTS, SPORT, THE ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM AND TERRITORIES Senator Bob Collins Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Collins I refer to Senator Cooney's letter of 26 May 1987 which arose out of the Committee's consideration of the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) Ordinance 1987. The Committee raised several matters relating to review of discretionary decisions by the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board under section 45, 56a and 57 of the Ordinance. Advice from the Attorney-General's Department has indicated that a review is appropriate in respect of discretions under section 45, 56a and 57 and, accordingly, I have requested that the Ordinance be amended to provide a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the case of sections 45 and 56a and 57. I have also asked that paragraph 57 (1) (b) (ii) be amended to clarify the nature of the Board's discretions. You should note that it will be some months before the necessary amendments can be drafted due to the extremely limited resources available to draft ACT legislation. You can be assured however that the necessary work will be completed as soon as practicable. Yours sincerely JOHN BROWN PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA The Senate STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES 2 June 1987 Dr Peter Wilenski Chairman Public Service Board McLachlan Offices National Circuit BARTON A.C.T. 2600 Dear Dr Wilenski At its meeting on 28 May 1987 the Committee considered Public Service Board Determination No. 21 of 1987 dealing with aspects of the transfer of officers within the service. Before detailing the nature of the Committee's interest in this legislation, it might be helpful if I briefly indicate the basis of the Committee's approach. When applying its scrutiny principles to legislative instruments designed to regulate managerial power and employment discretions in the public service, the defence forces and statutory authorities, the Committee is conscious of the need to strike a balance between, on the one hand, certain managerial imperatives, and on the other hand, the supervisory role of the Committee and of the Senate, in the reasonable protection of the various rights of all Australians. In its endeavours to strike this appropriate balance, the Committee is always appreciative of the advice of Ministers, statutory authority heads and Senators generally. Having said this, it would be very helpful for the Committee if you would clarify the use in Determination No. 21 of the concept ``the public interest'' in the context of Departmental Secretaries' powers to transfer officers for various reasons. Because of its wide import, national implications and lack of precision or settled meaning, the appearance in delegated legislation of the expression ``the public interest'' is examined by the Committee. It is a particularly difficult concept to define if one seeks to identify and properly limit its meaning and scope in the context of the management of the public service. In fact, it is an expression which is often seen to sit at large in order to encompass the widest possible range of influences which may impact on ministerial decisions, usually of national political significance. Thus, particular attention is paid by the Committee to examining this criterion of action where a person or authority other than a Minister is empowered to determine when the public interest shall be called in aid to justify or support administrative decisions. Having examined the Determination in the light of advice, the Committee notes that the public interest concept is left very much to the relevant Secretary to determine. Thus, ``eligible transferred officer'' means, inter alia, an officer who, in accordance with new subclauses 1.2 (3), 1.2 (4) and 1.2 (5), is taken to be transferred in the public interest, or an employee whose transfer is certified by the relevant Secretary as being in the public interest. The expression ``taken to be transferred in the public interest'' in accordance with new subclause 1.2 (3) is elaborated on in that subclause but without further amplification of the content of the concept as certified by a Secretary. In subclause 1.2 (4), for an officer to be taken to be transferred in the public interest, the relevant Secretary must first be satisfied that the transfer is in the public interest having regard to various criteria, including the nature of proven misconduct, certain locality and cost considerations and any other relevant matters. Subclause 1.2 (5) deems an officer to be an ``eligible transferred officer'' if certified by the relevant Secretary to be an officer who is to be taken to be transferred in the public interest having regard to the exceptional circumstances under which the transfer occurs and the greater efficiency in the Department that would result from the transfer. It appears to the Committee that in none of the foregoing examples is the content of this overriding public interest criterion described. It may be that because of the implied ambit of the expression its scope cannot be delimited. Indeed, perhaps for this very reason it is a concept best left in the preserve of ministerial judgments which are called to account in Parliament. By contrast, assessment of matters pertaining to ``greater Departmental efficiency'' is, by definition, the primary, proper and indeed onerous role of Departmental heads. It would appear to be a more appropriate overriding test for a Secretary to apply than the elusive and more politically sensitive test of ``the public interest''. In making these points the Committee is conscious of the very considerable care and skill which your specialist officers devote to the preparation of Determinations. Nevertheless, the Committee does view it as appropriate that it should examine whether the public interest is an acceptable basis for decision-making in the context of this Determination. I should point out in passing that the Committee is not unaware of the use of the expression in other PSB Determinations, most recently PSB Determination 1987/4, clause 4.1, inserting a new subclause 2.3.20 (7) and the somewhat analogous new subclause 2.3.22 (1), into PSB Determination 1983/10 concerning leave for defence purposes. Your comments and advice on this matter would be much appreciated by the Committee. Your sincerely BARNEY COONEY Chairman DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Pay and Classification Division Working Environment and Conditions Division McLachlan Offices National Circuit Barton 2600 Senator Bob Collins Chairman Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances The Senate Parliament of Australia Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Collins I refer to the letter of 21 June 1987 concerning Public Service Board Determination 1987/21 which was sent from Senator Barney Cooney to Dr Wilenski. I apologise for the delay in responding. Before addressing the issue raised by Senator Cooney, I might first explain why the Department of Industrial Relations is now responding to this letter. On 14 July 1987 the Prime Minister announced major changes to the structure of Commonwealth administration, including the abolition of the Public Service Board (PSB). Following the Prime Minister's 14 July announcement, the Secretary of the Department of Industrial Relations was delegated all PSB powers to make Determinations under section 82d of the Public Service Act 1922. These powers were also subdelegated to the occupants of certain positions of the Department, including the position of First Assistant Commissioner, Working Environment and Conditions Division-this Division having policy responsibility for relocation expense entitlements for Australian Public Service (APS) staff. The Administrative Arrangements Act 1987 which gave effect to the Prime Minister's 14 July announcement received the Royal Assent on 18 September 1987. Under this Act it has not been necessary to issue new delegations following the PSB's formal abolition. Subsections 11 (2), (5) and (6) of the Act save those delegations, subdelegations and instruments made before 18 September 1987. Further legislation, formally transferring the former PSB powers under Section 82d, has been foreshadowed. Turning to the substance of Senator Cooney's letter, we accept the reservations he expresses about use of the term `public interest' in PSB Determination 1987/21. We will therefore be making an amending Determination to entirely remove this term from PSB Determination 1983/10 for the purpose of establishing APS staff relocation expense entitlements. However, whilst in this area of the Determination we accept that it is inappropriate to use the undefined term `public interest', we would prefer its replacement with `Service-wide interest' rather than `greater Departmental efficiency'. The Departmental criterion would in our view be too narrow given for example the need to effect inter-departmental transfers in the interests of the APS at large rather than on the more limited basis of a particular Department's requirements-recent developments in the Service associated with the transfer between Departments of potentially surplus staff, some of whom could have moved between different localities, provide a cogent example of why a Service-wide criterion is necessary. We also have reservations about restricting any relocation expense entitlement to `efficiency' as against a broader criterion that could for example take into account as necessary the personal circumstances of staff where these arose. In summary therefore, we propose re-drafting the relevant sections of PSB Determination 1983/10 dealing with relocation expense entitlements in order that: (i) all references to `public interest' are removed and replaced with `in the interests of the Service', (ii) staff relocated under certain transfer authorities will automatically be entitled to have their transfer expenses met by the Commonwealth, ie: where a vacant position is advertised in the Commonwealth Gazette and a successful applicant is subsequently promoted (paragraph (a) under the definition of `eligible transferred officer' in sub-clause 1.2.1 (1) of the Determination presently refers); where transfer takes place on the grounds of illness or staff move to or from a prescribed remote locality (paragraph (c) under the definition of `eligible transferred officer' in sub-clause 1.2.1 (1) of the Determination presently refers), (iii) where Departments have a discretion as to whether the relocation of APS staff is to be considered as having taken place `in the interests of the Service,' the exercise of this discretion will be subject to the following factors: departmental staffing requirements; transfer costs; the efficient utilisation of staff; the skills and abilities of staff relevant to the duties of the transfer position; the career development of staff; the employment history of staff; the personal circumstances of staff; and any other relevant factor(s), (iv) where staff relocate as a consequence of disciplinary action, Departments will continue to have a discretion as to whether relocation is `in the interests of the Service' (in lieu of being in the `public interest'), but the exercise of this discretion will remain subject to those factors presently prescribed at (a) to (f) of sub-clause 1.2.1 (4) of the Determination. Subject to any further views the Committee may have, we intend to proceed along these lines. Yours sincerely C. T. HUNT First Assistant Secretary Working Environment and Conditions Division 16 October 1987 Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, 13 sitting days after today, I shall move: 1. That the Bounty (Ships) Reservation of Bounty Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 116 and made under the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980, be disallowed. 2. That the Bounty (Ship Repair) Reservation of Bounty Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 117 and made under the Bounty (Ship Repair) Act 1986, be disallowed. 3. That the Customs Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 140 and made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed. 4. That the Remand Centres (Amendment) Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 30 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 5. That the Postal By-Laws Amendment dated 18 June 1987, as contained in Amendment No. 3 of 1987 to the Postal By-Laws and made under the Postal Services Act 1975, be disallowed. 6. That the Meat Inspection (South Australia) Orders, as contained in Meat Inspection Orders No. 2 of 1987, made under the Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations, made under the Meat Inspection Act 1983, be disallowed. 7. That the Wool Marketing Regulations, being Statutory Rules 1987 No. 132, and made under the Wool Marketing Act 1987, be disallowed. 8. That the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Regulations (Amendment), being Statutory Rules 1987 No. 153 and made under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, be disallowed. 9. That the Gaming Machine Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 34 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 10. That the Stamp Duties and Taxes Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 39 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 11. That the Payroll Tax Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 40 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 12. That the Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) (Amendment) Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 38 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Amendment) Act 1910, be disallowed. 13. That the Taxation (Administration) Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 41 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 14. That the Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 3) 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 42 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 15. That the National Parks and Wildlife Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 139 and made under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, be disallowed. 16. That the Wheat Tax Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 182 and made under the Wheat Tax Act 1957, be disallowed. 17. That the Bounty (Ship Repair) Registration Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 53 and made under the Bounty (Ship Repair) Act 1986, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee held its first meeting of the Thirty-fifth Parliament on 8 October 1987 and dealt with the very large volume of delegated legislation that had been made since Parliament was dissolved on 5 June 1987. We have had before us 355 separate instruments of legislation and considered 18 reports of legal advisers. We have sent 40 letters to various Ministers about aspects of this legislation which require further scrutiny in accordance with the Committee's technical principles. As honourable senators will know, the Committee's principles deal with personal rights and parliamentary proprieties. I have given notice of motion regarding 17 instruments, our scrutiny of which has caused us to look at some important issues. We are hopeful that in those matters where no protective notice of motion has been given explanations will also be received expeditiously. In keeping with the Committee's usual practice, these are protective notices of motion designed to protect the interests of the Committee while Ministers consider the issues we have put to them in correspondence. A most famous Chairman of this Committee, Senator Ian Wood, described the Committee as the most important committee in the Parliament as it scrutinises Executive law-making and protects the primacy of Parliament. The late Lionel Murphy, when a senator, said that those acquainted with the Committee knew it to be `the most effective committee of its kind in all the parliaments of the world'. My predecessor as Chairman, Senator Cooney, told the Senate in June 1987 that the Committee was in the business of setting standards of `wisdom, justice, fairness and restraint' in delegated legislation and, in doing so, would not be intimidated, even by powerful institutions. Members of the Committee will be in the business of acting, in a bipartisan way, to improve the quality of delegated legislation in order to protect the rights of individuals. It is my firm hope that, under my chairmanship and with the Deputy Chairman, Senator Bronwyn Bishop, the Committee as a whole will maintain its high standards in the interests of the people and the Parliament. In conclusion, I congratulate Senator Bishop on being the first woman to be Deputy Chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. I look forward to working with her and all members of the Committee in the bipartisan spirit that has been its hallmark for the past 55 years. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a brief schedule describing the Committee's concerns about the legislation to which the notices of motion relate. Leave granted. The schedule read as follows- 1. Bounty (Ships) Reservation of Bounty Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 116 made under the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980. 2. Bounty (Ship Repair) Reservation of Bounty Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 117, made under the Bounty (Ship Repair) Act 1986. The Committee has sought advice from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce concerning, inter alia, procedures for review of certain discretionary decisions. 3. Customs Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 140 made under the Customs Act 1901. The Committee has sought from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce advice on the legality of methods used to charge fees to customs warehouse licensees. 4. Remand Centres (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 30 of 1987 made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The Committee has written to the Minister for DASETT seeking his advice on the independence and security of tenure of the Official Visitors who will replace Visiting Magistrates. 5. Postal By-Laws Amendment dated 18 June 1987 as contained in Amendment No. 3 of 1987 to the Postal By-Laws made under the Postal Services Act 1975. The Committee has sought advice from the Chairman of the Australian Postal Commission about the legal authority for an apparent subdelegation of quasi-legislative power and about procedures for the review of a discretionary power to allow stamps to be accepted in payment for accounts. 6. Meat Inspection (South Australia) Orders as contained in Meat Inspection Orders No. 2 of 1987, made under the Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations, made under the Meat Inspection Act 1983. The Committee has sought advice from the Hon. John Kerin, M.P., the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy about the use of these Orders to incorporate into the legislation by reference certain other instruments thereby giving those other instruments legislative effect. 7. Wool Marketing Regulations being Statutory Rules 1987 No. 132 made under the Wool Marketing Act 1987. The Committee has written to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy for advice about a number of issues including appeal procedures, strict liability offences and the legality of a possible subdelegation of quasi-legislative powers. 8. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Regulations (Amendment) being Statutory Rules 1987 No. 153 made under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. The Committee has sought advice from the Hon. Gerry Hand, M.P., Minister for Aboriginal Affairs concerning the reviewability of discretionary decisions which deny access to an important register. 9. Gaming Machine Ordinance 1987 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 34 of 1987 made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The Committee has sought the advice of the Minister for DASETT concerning, inter alia, the reviewability of certain discretionary decisions, parliamentary supervision of certain ministerial declarations and the reasons for extensive immunity from legal proceedings conferred on certain persons. 10. Stamp Duties and Taxes Ordinance 1987 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 39 of 1987 made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The Committee has sought advice from the Minister for DASETT on whether, inter alia, certain tax decisions are appellable and querying the scope of large powers to request information. 11. Payroll Tax Ordinance 1987 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 40 of 1987 made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The Committee has asked the Minister for DASETT for advice about the reviewability of certain discretionary decisions. 12. Business Franchise (Tobacco & Petroleum Products) (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 38 of 1987 made under the Seat of Government (Amendment) Act 1910. The Committee has asked the Minister for DASETT for advice about the reviewability of certain discretionary decisions. 13. Taxation (Administration) Ordinance 1987 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 41 of 1987 made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The Committee has sought advice from the Minister for DASETT concerning a number of issues including the limits of search powers and powers of access to documents; protection against self incrimination; avenues of appeal against certain discretionary decisions; the imposition of criminal liability on agents and others; and the validity of tax assessments when procedures are not followed. 14. Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 3) 1987 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 42 of 1987 made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The Committee has sought advice from the Minister for DASETT concerning the reviewability of certain discretionary decisions, the absence of a requirement for officials to obtain a ministerial approval for certain decisions, the termination of employment and service contracts without notice or compensation and the scope of the immunity from legal proceedings conferred on certain persons. 15. National Parks and Wildlife Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 139 made under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. The Committee has asked the Minister for DASETT about procedures for notifying people of their appeal rights, the existence of strict liability offences and the need for officials to carry and use proper photographic identity cards. 16. Wheat Tax Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 182 made under the Wheat Tax Act 1957. The Committee has asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy whether the regulations are invalid because the technical requirements of the consultation procedures set out in the Act have not been complied with. 17. Bounty (Ship Repair) Registration Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 53 made under the Bounty (Ship Repair) Act 1986. The Committee has written to the Minister for Industry Technology and Commerce seeking his advice about avenues of appeal against certain discretionary decisions. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I congratulate Senator Collins on his appointment as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and on his first report to the Senate. As outgoing Deputy Chairman of the Committee, I would also like to add my congratulations to Senator Bishop on her appointment as Deputy Chairman. Senator Bishop's appointment is significant because, following changes to Standing Orders, the Committee no longer elects a Deputy Chairman; he or she is appointed personally by the Chairman of the Committee. I commend Senator Collins for continuing the tradition of the Committee having an Opposition Deputy Chairman. His mates in the Australian Labor Party might not approve, but I can assure him that the parliamentarians in this chamber approve of the appointment. Unlike many of our colleagues on both sides of the chamber, I listened with interest to what Senator Collins said about the importance of the Committee and its bipartisan role. While Senator Collins is new to the Senate, he was, of course, a leading member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly Subordinate Legislation and Papers Committee and he is very familiar with the non-political role of these watchdog committees. Many senators best placed to know have described the Committee as the most important committee in the Parliament because it looks at a form of law-making that might otherwise escape some kind of due parliamentary process. I wish Senator Collins well in his role on this Committee. The Committee has been described as a `parliamentary hairshirt' and a `self-denying ordinance' because it requires politicians in this place to assume the large and heavy mantle of being parliamentarians of whom there are far too few in this place. In conclusion, I mention the outgoing Chairman, Senator Cooney. His fairness as a chairman and his independent approach to scrutiny, to protect rights, have set a high standard for the new Committee. To my knowledge, there was never an occasion, in dealing with the affairs of this Committee, when Senator Cooney did not act in accordance with the highest parliamentary standards of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. He deserves our sincere praise for that. The PRESIDENT —I am glad that everybody is being so modest this morning. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance 1983-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance 1983 and the Seat of Government (Administration) Act. 2. Trade Practices Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to section 171 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. 3. Debt recovery and insolvency-Law Reform Commission Report No. 36-Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. 4. Special Minister of State-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 5. Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education-Annual Report 1986-Together with the Auditor-General's report-Pursuant to section 30 of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to amend General Business notice of motion No. 26. I wish to amend paragraph (6) so that it reads: At 12 midday, Questions I wish to delete paragraph (7). I also wish to add as a new clause (3): That the sessional order relating to days and hours of meetings of the Senate for Fridays in week one be varied by leaving out 12.45 p.m. and inserting 1 p.m. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I now move: (1) That the Sessional Order relating to the Routine of Business for Fridays in week 1 be varied to read as follows: ``(1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business (6) At 12 midday, Questions (7) At 2 p.m., any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) Further consideration of Government Business''. (2) That the Sessional Order relating to proposals pursuant to Standing Order 64 be varied by leaving out paragraph (1) and inserting the following paragraphs: ``(1) On Fridays in week 1 the discussion of any proposal submitted to the Senate pursuant to Standing Order 64 shall not exceed one and three-quarter hours. (1a) On Thursdays in week 2 the discussion of any proposal submitted to the Senate pursuant to Standing Order 64 shall not exceed one hour.''. (3) That the sessional order relating to days and hours of meetings of the Senate for Fridays in week one be varied by leaving out 12.45 p.m. and inserting 1 p.m. I also seek leave, by arrangement with the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans), to make a brief statement about the motion. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —The motion I have moved involves the reordering of business on Fridays to permit us to have Question Time between the hours of 12 midday and 1 p.m., leaving an hour and three-quarters in the afternoon for the possible bringing forward of a matter of public importance or urgency motion. This matter was discussed with the Australian Democrats, who had the unhappy experience of seeing Senator Sanders cut out of an urgency debate on the last Friday of sitting. It has caused, as you can imagine, Mr President, enormous distress on the Opposition benches. We decided that that should not be allowed to happen again. For that reason we have sought this extension of the time available to bring forward a matter of public importance or an urgency motion. In deference to the Government's concern at losing an hour of Government time, we have agreed to Question Time being between 12 midday and 1 p.m., which gives back 15 minutes. I also indicate to the Senate that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) has put to the Opposition, the Australian Democrats and, for all I know, to Independent senators the possibility of a further revision of sittings for Fridays and the possibility of the Senate not sitting on Fridays. I simply indicate, in moving this motion, that the Opposition has not yet had a chance to consider the suggestions of the Manager of Government Business. We will do so next week and there will be further discussions. The terms of the motion vary the routine of business for Fridays generally. I think honourable senators should be aware that it is possible that the Government or the Opposition may bring forward further variations, subject to the discussions to be held in the coming weeks. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I intend in future to refuse a request for these types of motions to be considered formal because I have not been consulted about any of these moves in respect of sitting times. Senator Chaney —We gave notice two days ago. Senator HARRADINE —It is on the Notice Paper, I agree. But the points that have been raised by Senator Chaney today about the possibility of not sitting on Fridays indicates that discussions have gone on. Senator Gareth Evans —No, it was very preliminary. I was going to talk to you today. It has just been raised as an issue, that is all. Senator HARRADINE —I gather that it is afloat. In respect of the point about Question Time on Fridays being from 12 noon until 1 p.m., I do not know what the Government's view is. Senator Chaney —It doesn't matter. Senator HARRADINE —It does matter because it seems to me that time for Business of the Senate and passing legislation is being eaten into. I do not mind that, except when it comes to the end of the session, particularly at Christmas when, very often, because time appears to be taken up in various other ways, a whole lot of measures are truncated into a very short time. That matter ought to be given further mature consideration. There will be no debate at the present time on whether there should be a further three-quarters of an hour of time eaten into. There has been some fix-up and that is why this motion was declared formal. I do not think it is fair on members of parliament who have other views to have such matters declared formal. Senator Peter Baume —Why didn't you declare it not formal? You had the power, Senator. Senator HARRADINE —Of course, but honourable senators know how popular one is when one declares things not formal. I think it is important for these matters to be determined by debate in this chamber and not to be fixed up by some backroom deals, as this obviously has been. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-I simply say for the record that the Government shares Senator Harradine's distress at Government Business time being reduced by an hour in order to enable the time for a matter of public importance to be extended in the afternoon. We are not totally mollified by the compassion that the Opposition has shown, with the Australian Democrats, in reducing that hour's loss to 45 minutes. However, we acknowledge, with a healthy sense of realism that is increasingly overcoming me standing in this position, that to contest the point at any length would not be productive in terms of the likely outcome of the result. There will be further discussions which, at the moment, are only at a very tentative, very preliminary stage. I would be delighted to talk to Senator Harradine about that and anything else he would like in the near future. On that basis we simply think it is appropriate that this motion go through and we pick up the pieces later. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Lewis) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the National Crime Authority Act 1984. Motion (by Senator Lewis) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to extend the life of the National Crime Authority by repealing section 63 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 which provides for the termination of the Authority on 30 June 1989. There is urgent need for this legislation-First, to ensure the continuity of the most important work of the Authority, secondly to enable reasonable periods of engagement to be offered to members of the Authority and other staff and thirdly to provide security to those already engaged by the Authority and who have of necessity to consider their positions beyond 30 June 1989. On the first issue, the reality is that the Authority currently has a tremendous workload. Confronted with the current sunset date of 30 June 1989 the Authority will be faced with the need-shortly I suggest-to close down its investigative activities to enable it to finalise matters and report before that date. The prospect that the Authority's war against major crime and bosses will need to cease is unthinkable and is to be deplored. I turn now to the need to appoint new members of the Authority. Mr Bingham's term expires in 2 1/2 months and under the terms of the Act he cannot be re-appointed. The question must be raised as to who would take such a senior position when there is no undertaking of employment beyond 18 months. In the case of Mr Justice Stewart, the Chairman of the Authority, his term expires on 30 June 1988, leaving only 12 months before the date on which the life of the authority is due to expire. There are, in the view of the Opposition, other changes which are required to improve the NCA Act, but in the short term ensuring the on-going activity of the Authority and introducing some stability to its management is so essential that this single issue Bill has been introduced at this time. The Opposition has a strong commitment to the Authority's attack on organised crime. If the Government is like-minded it would support this Bill which is designed to ensure an on-going attack against organised crime. However, the Government's attitude towards the Authority must be seriously suspect. The opposition introduced a Bill similar to the current one as far back as February of this year. That Bill lapsed with the calling of the election. Nevertheless the Government has had at least ten months' notice of the problem and has failed to take any action to remedy it. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.20) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- STATES GRANTS (GENERAL REVENUE) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (General Revenue) Act 1985 to implement decisions made at the May 1987 premiers' conference relating to the level of financial assistance grants and identified health grants to be distributed among the states in 1987-88. The Bill also incorporated amendments relating to the decision announced in the Budget requiring states to contribute to the costs of higher education superannuation schemes. In respect of the agreements reached at the premiers' conference, the Bill seeks to fix the actual dollar amount of financial assistance grants and identified health grants in 1987-88 at levels estimated to be sufficient to maintain their value in real terms. These provisions modify the arrangements agreed at the May 1985 Premier's Conference. At that time, the Commonwealth and states agreed that, during the triennium beginning 1985-86, the level of financial assistance grants and identified health grants to be distributed among the states would be determined having regard to actual increases in the all groups consumer price index (CPI) in the year ending in the March quarter of each year. The level of grants was to be maintained in real terms in 1985-86 and increased by two per cent in real terms in each of the following two years. These arrangements, which were reflected in the States Grants (General Revenue) Act 1985, applied in both 1985-86 and 1986-87. It is necessary, however, to amend them in respect of 1987-88. This decision constitutes part of the Government's policy of reducing the calls made by all levels of government on the nation's savings. The May statement on initial Budget measures for 1987-88 announced various decisions designed to give effect to the Commonwealth's endeavours in this regard. That statement also indicated our intention to seek agreement, at the premiers' conference on 25 May 1987, to savings of $1000 million on the forward estimates of general purpose payments to the states and the Northern Territory in 1987-88. At the Premiers' Conference, the Commonwealth and state governments agreed to the level of financial assistance grants and identified health grants to be distributed among the states in 1987-88 being maintained in real terms. Specifically, it was agreed that the total pool of such payments to the states would be fixed at $13,539 million. This amount was calculated on the basis of the estimates at the time of the Premiers' Conference of the level of the grants in 1986-87, increased by 8 per cent representing the forecast rise in the CPI in the year to March 1988. The decision to hold these grants and analogous grants to the Northern Territory at the same real level accounted for $285 million of the $1000 million savings against the forward estimates. The outcome of the Premiers' Conference reflected a general acceptance by the states and the Commonwealth of the need for all levels of government to cut back their borrowing and spending. The Bill also covers matters dealing with the decision announced in the budget that, commencing on 1 January 1988, the Commonwealth will limit its contributions to state higher education superannuation schemes operated on an `emerging cost' basis. Greater detail on this decision is to be provided by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training as part of a separate statement on higher education. All states except Queensland will be affected. The Bill places an obligation on those states to make a payment to the Commonwealth covering their share of higher education superannuation costs. It does so by making the payment of financial assistance under the Act conditional on such a payment being received by the Commonwealth by 31 May 1988. The precise amount for each state will be determined by the Minister by 31 March 1988. This Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's endeavours to effect adjustments to fiscal policy in Australia. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the related explanatory memorandum. STATES (WORKS AND HOUSING) ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Act 1985 so as to authorise payments in 1987-88 arising out of decisions, taken at the 25 May, 1987 Loan Council Meeting, which fall outside the provisions of the Financial Agreement Act 1928. Specifically, this Bill seeks to authorise: The payment of general purpose capital grants to the states in 1987-88; The prepayment of capital grants during the first six months of 1988-89, pending passage of similar legislation in that year; and, The alteration of the amounts that may be nominated by the States and the Northern Territory from the borrowing component of their Loan Council Programs for the purpose of public housing in 1987-88. It also makes provision for each State and the Northern Territory to provide a certified statement as to the expenditure of funds nominated for the purpose of public housing. Capital Grants to States Since 1970-71 a portion of the state governments' Loan Council Programs have been provided by the Commonwealth as interest free capital grants. The grants were introduced to help states finance works, such as schools and other capital works, from which debt charges are not normally recovered. The effect of these grants, therefore, is to relieve the states of those debt charges (ie, interest payments and sinking fund contributions) which they would otherwise have to pay, and the grants accordingly have a substantial beneficial effect on the overall financial positions of the states. In addition, there are no conditions attaching to the manner in which the grants are applied by the states. In the ten years prior to 1985-86 the grants represented one-third of the state Governments' Loan Council Programs. In 1985-86 and again in 1986-87 the portion of the programs provided as a capital grant was temporarily increased by 7 per cent to approximately 35.7 per cent, with the loan portion being reduced by an equivalent amount. For 1987-88 the Loan Council agreed that the grant component of the state governments' Loan Council programs and equivalent general purpose capital assistance to the Northern Territory as a whole should be one third. However, due to changes in the distribution between the States and the Northern Territory agreed at the loan council meeting, the proportion of the program provided as a capital grant will vary slightly from state to state. The total amount to be provided to the States as a capital grant is $176 million out of a total program of $533 million. Public Housing Nominations The arrangements whereby the states and the Northern Territory are able to nominate part of the borrowing component of their Loan Council programs for public housing were introduced in 1982-83. The arrangements have contributed considerably to the financing of public housing in the states and the encouragement of the states to increase their own housing expenditures. States Grants Legislation As a condition of the payment of these funds, a State or the Northern Territory must be able to meet its matching requirements for the purposes of the Housing Assistance Act 1984. Subject to that, the nominated funds will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory at the loan terms and conditions set out in the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement, and hence will bear interest at the concessional rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum and will be repayable over 53 years. At the Loan Council meeting on 25 May, 1987 it was agreed that the States and the Northern Territory would be allowed to nominate the whole of the borrowing component of their programs for public housing in 1987-88. This Bill seeks to give effect to those decisions. Should the States and Northern Territory nominate the maximum amounts allowed under this Bill, $414 million will be provided to them as loans on concessional terms for public housing. Statement by State in Respect of Public Housing The Bill provides that the States and the Northern Territory will be required to provide the Commonwealth with certified financial statements detailing the expenditure of loan funds nominated for public housing. This change will formalise existing reporting arrangements already agreed to between the Commonwealth and the States, and is consistent with those applying to assistance provided under the Housing Assistance Act 1984. This Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's overall financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory and I therefore commend the Bill to the Senate and present the related explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Mr President, this Bill proposes a number of amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Act 1967 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Cash Bidding) Amendment Act 1985 which will improve the administration of petroleum exploration and development activities in Australian offshore waters, correct some anomalies in the legislation and ensure that the option is available to the Joint Authority in the future to use cash bidding as a means of awarding exploration permits over highly prospective acreage. In late 1985, the Government announced the outcome of its review on the 1979 Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS). The outcome was that the Government considered that the arrangements entered into by the Commonwealth with the States and the Northern Territory to administer activities in Australia's offshore waters were working satisfactorily, and the Government therefore decided not to take action to regain title over the Territorial Sea and coastal waters. The review of the OCS did, however, identify certain administrative functions in the Commonwealth's offshore petroleum legislation which require change. These changes are to repeal the special arrangement with Western Australia whereby disagreements in the Joint Authority (the Commonwealth and relevant State Minister) are resolved on a Premier/Prime Minister basis, and to allow those matters which were previously dealt with by the Joint Authority at the discretion of the Commonwealth Minister, to become automatically matters for Joint Authority decision. The Government's decision to abolish the special arrangement for resolving disagreements within the Western Australia Joint Authority reflects the Government's view that the treatment of the States and Northern Territory under the offshore petroleum legislation should be uniform. This Government rejects the claim upon which this special Western Australian arrangement is based-that is, that the economic importance of petroleum and related activity to Western Australia places that State in a unique position. Rather, the Government considers that the importance of offshore petroleum operations to Western Australia is no greater than that of other States or the Northern Territory. Our experience has been that, where a Joint Authority has been involved in decisions, the consultative provisions of the offshore petroleum legislation which are generally applicable have proved entirely satisfactory. Under these general provisions, which are to be retained in the legislation, Joint Authority decisions are made after consultation between senior Ministers of the respective Governments, and the consultative process provides ample scope for full consideration of all factors relevant to the interests of the Commonwealth and to the States/NT, and the resolution of any differences of view. If, after consultation, disagreement remains within the Joint Authority, then, consistent with the Commonwealth's responsibilities, the Commonwealth Minister may decide the matter. The second issue arising from the Government's OCS review also relates to Joint Authority decision making. Under present arrangements some matters (for example, the award of exploration permits) must be referred by the Designated Authority (the State/NT Minister) to the Joint Authority, while other matters (for example, inviting applications for the award of exploration permits) may be referred to the Joint Authority at the discretion of the Commonwealth Minister. Because decisions of the Designated Authority in the latter category have the potential to be referred to the Joint Authority, it has become practice for these matters to be dealt with administratively as if they must be decided by the Joint Authority. This practice has evolved in order to avoid the significant administrative delays which would otherwise occur if the Commonwealth Minister was to decide that a matter should be referred to the Joint Authority. The amendments contained principally in clauses 5 and 13 and in the Schedule of the Bill will formally make the Joint Authority automatically responsible for these matters. A further consideration in the Government's decision to refer all these matters to the Joint Authority has been the apparent confusion, particularly for new companies wishing to undertake offshore petroleum operations, about which authority is responsible for the decisions on such matters. A number of other amendments contained in the Bill are, like those relating to the OCS arrangements, being introduced to improve administration of offshore petroleum activities and to remove some anomalies in the legislation. Under the current legislation, a location can only be declared over a petroleum discovery in an exploration permit if the location contains a block in which an exploratory well has been drilled and from which petroleum has been recovered. This has led to the situation where a discovery which straddles a permit boundary, and for which only one exploratory well has been drilled, cannot be fully developed. This arises because a location can only be declared in the permit in which the exploratory well has been drilled and, hence, subsequent production licences or retention leases cannot be granted over the whole discovery. While the problem could be overcome by drilling a second exploratory well in the other permit, this practice may not be justified economically or technically. A further difficulty with the current legislation is that the size of a location is generally set at nine blocks. In many instances this size is much larger than necessary to cover the discovery, though, on occasions the nine block location has been too small to cover some very large gas discoveries. To overcome these difficulties clause 9 of the Bill amends the current legislation to allow the Joint Authority to declare a location over any block from which the Joint Authority is satisfied petroleum can be recovered. The Joint Authority will also be able to declare a location over as many blocks as is necessary to cover the discovery. The Bill also provides for the expansion or reduction of a location area if further information indicates a change in the extent of the petroleum discovery. Clauses 6, 8 and 10 of the Bill will repeal what are known as `over-the-counter' awards of permits and production licences. If, following the advertising of invitations for the grant of an exploration permit or production licence over an area, the Joint Authority decides not to grant a title or grants a title over part of the area then, under existing legislation, there is provision for the Joint Authority to accept applications for the award of a title over the area or any remaining part of the area. The Government believes that the most efficient approach to the award of offshore titles is by competitive tendering. Given this principle and the regular release of offshore petroleum acreage, the Government sees no need for `over-the-counter' awards of titles. The amendments contained in clause 11 of the Bill follow representations from petroleum companies. Under the existing legislation, applications to register a dealing affecting the interests in a title under section 81 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act must be accompanied by an instrument evidencing the dealing and an instrument prescribed in regulations (if any). The instrument evidencing the dealing is available for public inspection and, as these instruments can contain sensitive contractual information, a number of companies have sought protection for this confidential information. The Government shares the industry's concerns and the amendments seek to provide adequate protection for confidential information while safeguarding the public interest. This is achieved by providing companies with an option of submitting the prescribed instrument mentioned above. Where the prescribed instrument is lodged with a registration application then this instrument, rather than the instrument evidencing the dealing, will be available for public inspection. In the case where companies elect not to lodge a prescribed instrument, the existing legislative approach applies - that is, the instrument evidencing the dealing will be available for public inspection. In this way, it will be open to the companies to decide what documents should remain confidential, but it is expected that companies will only take advantage of the new arrangements where it is clear that the release of any confidential information contained in the document would be detrimental to the company. The regulation which sets out the particulars of the prescribed instrument will ensure that, in the public interest, all necessary details are included. These details of the dealing include the parties to it, the title affected by it, the nature of the transaction and the value of the consideration upon which registration fees are based. Industry has objected to the inclusion of the value of the consideration of the dealing in the prescribed instrument, arguing that this information is commercially sensitive. However, given that the registration fee is based on the value of the consideration of the dealing, the Government believes, in the interests of public accountability, that the consideration should remain a requirement of the prescribed instrument. Industry has also argued that these amendments should be applied retrospectively to instruments evidencing dealings which have already been approved. This would have the effect of removing documents from public inspection. Because these documents have already been available for public inspection, the Government's view is that they no longer have a confidential status. In addition, a retrospective application of the amendments could impose a significant administrative burden on some Designated Authorities. Clause 14 of the Bill relates to the 1985 amendments to section 118 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act which provided for the early release of basic data and interpretive information supplied by titleholders to government, subject to appeals provisions relating to the release of interpretive information after 5 years. It was the Government's intention that these amendments to section 118 should apply to data and information supplied both before and after the amendments were proclaimed on 22 July 1985. The amending legislation was, however, defective in that the new section 118 provisions do not apply to data and information supplied before the date of proclamation. As the early release of information facilitates a better understanding of the petroleum potential of offshore areas and, consequently, encourages further exploration activity, the Government wishes to rectify the situation and clause 14 amends the Act appropriately. Release of commercial sensitive would of course be subject to the usual appeals provisions set out in the Act. Following a recent review of procedures relating to the verification of royalty collections by the Australian Auditor-General's Office, it has become necessary for the Commonwealth to clarify its rights to obtain documents related to offshore petroleum operations. Under the current legislation the Commonwealth Minister is able to acquire copies of documents received by the Designated Authority, but is unable to direct the Designated Authority as to what Documents and records the producers should be required to keep and make available. The proposed amendment at clause 15 will correct this deficiency and thus ensure that the Commonwealth is able to obtain all documentation necessary to ensure that its responsibility in relation to the collection of royalties on petroleum production are met. Prior to the proclamation of the 1985 amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Act, fees payable upon the registration of a transfer under section 78 or a dealing under section 81 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act were calculated on the basis of 1.5 per cent of the consideration or value of the title affected by the transaction or, if the transaction was related to a previous dealing for which the 1.5 per cent fee had already been paid, a flat $300 fee. An unintended transitional consequence of the 1985 amendments to the Fees Act has been that a dealing registered under the Principal Act prior to the proclamation of the above amendments (22 July 1985) may not be recognised as a related prior dealing for the purposes of reducing the fee payable. The clause 18 amendment will rectify this situation and will ensure that, where appropriate, the flat $300 fee will be charged. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Cash Bidding) Amendment Act 1985, which came into force on 22 November 1985, is currently subject to a two year sunset clause. If the Act is to continue in force, Parliament needs to re-endorse its support for the cash bidding system. The Government has completed a review of the effectiveness of cash bidding and proposes in clause 19 of this Bill to remove the sunset clause. The cash bidding system provides an alternative to the work program system as a means of awarding petroleum exploration permits in highly prospective areas. The Government's aim by introducing cash bidding was to provide an efficient and equitable system of permit award-an objective which on past experience was not being met by the work program system in circumstances where competition was intense. For the 2 year trial period, the use of cash bidding has been confined to the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands Adjacent Areas, consistent with the Government's agreement with the State and Northern Territory Governments that the use of cash bidding in other offshore adjacent areas would await the review of the operation of the system in the Territory of the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Adjacent Area. In this way, it would be possible for an assessment to be made of the concerns that had been expressed by sections of the exploration industry and certain State Governments and the Northern Territory about the impact of the cash bidding system. These particular concerns were that the cash bidding system: would decrease exploration activity because of reduced funds and increased risks and costs; would disadvantage small to medium size Australian companies; and was inconsistent with the resource rent tax (RRT) The review has assessed these concerns in the light of experience of the first and, to date, only cash bidding release of off-shore petroleum exploration acreage in the Timor Sea region of the Territory of the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Adjacent Area. Applications for five highly prospective areas in this region were invited on 25 November 1985 and closed on 28 February 1986. A total of six eligible bids, from consortia, involving 16 companies, for four of the five areas were received. Three consortia were successful. Offers of permit award were made by the Joint Authority to these three successful consortia on 3 March 1986, with all three consortia accepting the offers within the allowable 30 days. The permits, AC/P5, AC/P6 and AC/P7, were formally granted on 4 April 1986 for a single six-year term. The successful bids totalled over $31.5m with all successful bids being at least $10m. Given that applications for the above areas were invited just prior to the collapse in world oil prices, the results of this cash bid round were particularly pleasing. The size and number of bids clearly showed that companies saw good prospects for satisfactory commercial returns from the areas offered despite considerable uncertainty surrounding the world crude oil market outlook. In addition, the award process represented a considerable streamlining of administrative effort. Applications were able to be assessed and permits awarded in a little over one month. This compares with the 3 to 4 months needed to process applications and award permits under the work program system. The criticism concerning the impact on exploration activity suggested that cash bids would adversely affect exploration activity either in other areas held by the companies or in the cash bid permits themselves. While the impact of the former cannot be assessed, the evidence suggests that the level of exploration activity in the cash bid permits is not significantly different from that in work program permits awarded in late 1985 and in 1986. The three cash bid permits have been in force for nearly 18 months, and in that time seismic surveys have been completed in AC/P5 (385 line kms), AC/P6 (550 line kms) and AC/P7 (1387 line kms). This work is expected to lead to drilling activity in the second year of the permits, activity which no doubt has been deferred because of the collapse in oil prices-a fact which has affected exploration activity world-wide. Another claim made at the time the legislation was introduced into Parliament was that cash bidding would increase the risks and costs of exploration. At the time, the Government argued that in assessing whether to lodge a cash bid, companies would take into account the expected risks and costs involved in exploring in a permit, and the size of their bid would reflect that calculation. The cash bid, in itself, would not affect the risks or the costs involved, rather it is the risks and costs which would influence the size of the bid. Further, the Government argued that it could be expected that the cash bidding system would reduce the risks and costs facing companies compared with the work program system. Under the cash bidding system, companies are free to undertake the most commercially viable exploration program consistent with the prevailing economic conditions and prospectivity assessments. Under the work program system, however, companies are committed to an exploration program designed up to three years in advance and must face the considerable risk that changing circumstances will make that exploration program uneconomic. The Government's arguments have been vindicated. The evidence is that companies involved in over 39 per cent of active work program permits have sought deferments of commitments following the collapse in oil prices at the beginning of 1986. This has involved considerable administrative effort on the part of Governments and companies. The companies in the cash bid permits have, on the other hand, been free to assess their position in the light of the dramatically changed world oil market. Cash bidding was also criticised because it was expected that large, foreign companies would dominate the bidding. The Government has always acknowledged that it would be difficult for smaller companies to participate in off-shore exploration because of the costs and risks involved. Regardless of the award system for exploration permits the stronger companies could be expected to dominate. The Government did note, however, that it expected no change to the existing practice in the industry-namely, that consortia including Australian companies would be formed to bid for permits. The first cash bid release has confirmed that Government judgment. Of the three successful consortia, each has Australian interests of 40 per cent or more-the average Australian ownership over the three permits being 62.7 per cent. Of the 11 companies involved in the successful consortia, 6 are Australian including some small to medium sized firms. Over the total bidding round, there were 16 companies of which 9 were Australian. The evidence, therefore, suggests that Australian companies are not being discriminated against in their attempts to explore in highly prospective areas because of the introduction of the cash bidding system. The claim that cash bidding is inconsistent with RRT cannot be established objectively but, rather, is a philosophical question. The Government views the RRT and cash bidding system of awarding exploration rights as complementary measures-namely, together they collect for the community a share of the economic rent resulting from the exploration for, and the exploitation of, Australia's petroleum resources. This is a view shared by a number of other countries. The review has, therefore, concluded that: the cash bidding system has met the Government's objective of providing a more efficient and less regulatory system of award and administration of exploration permits than the work program system; there is no evidence available to suggest that exploration activity has declined because of the use of cash bidding; there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Australian companies are not disadvantaged by the cash bidding system; and there is no justification for the claim that cash bidding is inconsistent with RRT. Despite the conclusions of this review and the demonstrated willingness of the industry to participate in the cash bidding system, the industry remains opposed to the system. Further, some States and the Northern Territory are not yet convinced of its merits although all are concerned that they should receive a share of any cash bids. The Government, however, is convinced that cash bidding is superior to the work program system as a means of permit award in circumstances where competition is expected to be intense because of the high prospectivity of the areas on offer. The Government supports the continued use of the cash bidding system and will maintain its commitment to the States and the Northern Territory to consult with them before permits in their adjacent areas are proposed for release under the system. All of the amendments, except for the repeal of the cash bidding sunset clause, are not expected to have any financial impact nor will any of the amendments increase regulation in the petroleum exploration and development industry. In the case of the cash bidding amendment, the level of revenue that might be raised by the award of permits under the cash bidding system cannot be estimated as it will depend on the number of areas released during each financial year and the industry's appraisal of and response to the acreage released. Mr President, the proposed amendments contained in this Bill have been the subject of consultation with the States, the Northern Territory, and the industry, and with a few exceptions the amendments have general support. The amendments are essential to the effective and efficient administration of the Commonwealth's offshore petroleum legislation and I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Senator CHANEY —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade aware that current bans by the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia on trade with Fiji are almost certainly in contravention of section 30k of the Crimes Act and of section 45d of the Trade Practices Act? Does he agree that the 1 November bans on air travel to Fiji would also be in breach of those Acts? Will the Government initiate action against the unions which have taken de facto control of Australian foreign policy? Senator GARETH EVANS —I make no judgment about whether or not bans of this kind may conceivably be in breach of any particular Commonwealth law. It is always, of course, a matter for judgment in all the circumstances of the case whether, even if there is a technical breach, action should be proceeded with. The Government has made its position perfectly clear, that we do not believe the bans are defensible and also that we believe that they are not likely to be productive in bringing about any change of heart by the Fijian authorities. It was all too readily apparent that alternative sources of supply became readily available for the commodity concerned when these bans were imposed last time round. It is equally apparent that the airline bans that were previously in place had no effect whatsoever in changing the course upon which the Fijian military authorities seemed determined to be pursuing. That is so in the absence of widespread international support for such bans of a kind that there has been in comparison with the case of South Africa. Mr Hayden, the Foreign Minister, referred yesterday in the House of Representatives to an ongoing course of consultation that he is engaged in with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, both personally and also with the Minister for Industrial Relations playing a role. The Government will continue that process of consultation in the hope that within a reasonable period not too distant the bans can be lifted and some normality returned. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. In light of the sort of craven abrogation of responsibility that that answer and the previous answers represent and the statements by the Foreign Minister that he is going to go on making representations to the trade union movement, I ask the Minister: Will the Government live up to its responsibilities, resume control of foreign policy and take action under the various statutes which are available to it to insist that the Government's view that these bans are not defensible and are not likely to be productive actually be made the operative system? Senator GARETH EVANS —The craven abdication of responsibility has been the hallmark of the present Opposition's performance on all industrial relations matters during its tenure in government. The industrial relations record in this country during its tenure in government was one of which no government, no country, could be proud. By contrast, the attitude which this Government has brought to the conduct of industrial relations matters, including sensitive industrial relations matters with foreign policy implications, has been an approach which has brought to this country a period of unrivalled industrial peace and prosperity. We make no apologies for the way in which we approach these issues. They are sensitive and they are difficult; we acknowledge that. We will continue with the course that we have adopted and we utterly reject the approach that the Opposition brings to bear. Senator BEAHAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) television news last night to the effect that if this Government had brought down a Budget with a significant surplus for this financial year, the consequences of any loss of revenue attributable to the decline in the stock market prices would not be so severe. I ask the Minister: What would be the position if the fiscal strategy proposed by Mr Howard before the 11 July election had been implemented? Senator WALSH —I did hear the Opposition Leader whining again on the ABC last night. I suppose he was whining in typical fashion in other media outlets as well. The Senate will remember, of course, the grossly irresponsible shadow Budget that was presented by Mr Howard in the run-up to the last Federal election. Leaving aside the $2 1/2 billion of completely blue sky in unspecified expenditure cuts, had Mr Howard been in a position to implement that Budget, revenue in this financial year would have fallen by around $2 billion because Mr Howard was pledged to abolishing the tax reform measures which this Government has legislated for over the last couple of years-abolishing fringe benefits tax, abolishing capital gains tax and abolishing substantiation. That would have cost the revenue about $2 billion. There was also some $900m of supply side voodoo flowing to revenue, according to Mr Howard, from the effects of cutting marginal tax rates. That, of course, was the theory upon which the Reagan Administration based its early Budgets. What happened under the Reagan Administration was that, instead of the revenue base expanding to the extent that more than offset the decline in the tax rate, the United States Budget deficit blew out and peaked in the last financial year at some $220 billion. Put in Australian terms-that is, as a proportion of gross domestic product-that is just over a $10 billion Budget deficit, which, of course, happens to be the same prospective Budget deficit as Mr Howard left behind him when he was Treasurer. According to Mr Howard, another $900m would come from the enhanced enforcement of the Income Tax Assessment Act. How that was going to be done while he was simultaneously cutting staff in the Commonwealth bureaucracy is a matter for wide-eyed conjecture. Returning to the supply side voodoo of the $900m which was supposed to flow, I was astonished to hear that President Reagan said yesterday, I think it was, that he would increase taxation revenue, but that one could not do that by increasing taxation rates; that the way to increase revenue was to reduce the rates. If he really believes that, one wonders why he has not done so already. Obviously, President Reagan is displaying that he does not possess the capacity that the higher anthropoids are supposed to have-that is, for trial and error learning. I wonder whether the Opposition has the capacity for trial and error learning or whether it also, like Reagan apparently, is committed to the supply side voodoo which asserts that if one cuts taxation rates, revenue actually increases. Had Mr Howard's shadow Budget been implemented, the revenue would have fallen by nearly $4 billion and the Budget deficit, of course, would have blown out accordingly. If, as I think one is perfectly entitled to do, one adds to the $4 billion revenue loss the $2 1/2 billion of totally unspecified expenditure cuts, the Budget deficit would have blown out to some $6 billion had his strategy been implemented. Of course, a deficit of something over $6 billion was his policy. He, of course, was a Bjelke-Petersen sycophant in the run-up to the election. He went up to Brisbane to grovel at the feet of the menace from the north. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister and his method of dealing with this question are thoroughly out of order. He is clearly debating the question again and, in my view, using unparliamentary language with respect to the Leader of the Opposition. He should be called to order. Senator Robert Ray —He is a sycophant. Senator Chaney —Senator Ray has joined in the chorus. The weak-minded always follow the strong. That is a very good example of it. Senator Gareth Evans —He is a grovelling sycophant. The PRESIDENT —The Minister is debating the question. I ask him not to do that. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I think that Senator Evans improved on my description of Mr Howard. He said that he was a grovelling sycophant. I think that is-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, on a point of order: I do not think that your ruling should be treated with that much contempt. I suggest that you call the Minister to order. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to withdraw the comment. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. In short, if Mr Howard's shadow Budget had become a real Budget we would have had a Budget deficit of the order of $6 billion. If the policy put forward by the National Party of Australia, and I remind the Senate that Mr Howard travelled to Brisbane during the election campaign to seek the blessing of the Queensland Premier-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, your having ruled that the Minister is debating the question, he is going over exactly the same track, slightly changing the words. I ask you to sit the Minister down. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to finalise his answer. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. Had the National Party strategy been adopted-and there is every reason to believe it would have been-the deficit under Mr Howard would have been substantially greater than the $6 billion it would have been on his own figures. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I remind the Minister that both South Africa and Fiji now have regimes entrenching minority racist rule against the wishes of the majority of their citizens and that they use, or are prepared to use, force to maintain those regimes. I ask: First, why does the Australian Government deny the validity of one of the regimes, that is, South Africa, while accepting the reality of the other, that is, Fiji? Second, why does the Australian Government support and apply sanctions in the case of one of the countries, that is, South Africa, but not in the case of the other, that is, Fiji? Is there not a common issue of principle, that is, regimes entrenching minority racist rule against the wishes of the majority of their citizens? Should not the Australian Government pursue consistent and coherent policies in its response to both these racist regimes? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is a sense in which there is some identity of approach between the military regime in Fiji and the long-established white regime in South Africa. Both do involve, of course, a measure of institutionalised racism. Regrettably, that is also true of a number of other countries around the world where constitutions are written in such a way as to preserve communal rights, often at the expense of majority rights. I can think of at least one other example in our own region. The difference between the two countries, however, is still an extremely significant one in quantitative terms. The institutionalisation of racism in South Africa has been an endemic part of that whole country's latter day, modern existence. Blacks in that country are denied absolutely the right to vote; they are denied the right to participate at all-not only on a minority basis, but at all-in the governing institutions of that country. Blacks in South Africa are denied the most fundamental respect for human dignity in the way in which the apartheid laws operate to deny access to public facilities, institutions and things of that kind. Mercifully, the institutionalisation of racism has not gone down that particular path in Fiji. The racism that exists and that is now institutionalised in Fiji is confined essentially to the political process, and participation in that process, to the extent that would be appropriate were democratic principles to be fully applied. We deplore the course that has been taken in Fiji. We have made that abundantly apparent. We hope that it will be changed. But it is a caricature of the situation-an indefensible caricature-to place the Fijian situation on all fours with the monstrous institutionalised racism involved in apartheid. Accordingly, we reject the approach that is implicit in Senator Baume's question. As to the difference in the approach to sanctions, I think I made it clear that not only does some difference of approach follow from the answer I have just given about the different characters of the two regimes but, more importantly, I guess, it is based on a judgment of what might be able to be achieved. We have made the judgment in regard to the situation in Fiji, as I have already indicated in answer to an earlier question, that whatever the moral force or utility of sanctions might be thought to be in such a situation-and that is arguable-their practical effect is likely to be nil because of the ready availability of alternative sources of supply. Under those circumstances it would seem to be a counterproductive gesture as well as a futile one. Senator COOK —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to an article which appeared on page 80 of the Economist magazine of 17 October? Is the Minister able to spell out the comments made in that article relating to the Hawke Government's budgetary policy? Is it the Minister's view that the article tends to support the Opposition's criticism of the Hawke Government's budgetary policy stance? Senator WALSH —I have indeed seen the article referred to and, fortuitously, I have a copy of it with me. It states, among other things: Mr Bob Hawke's Labor Government has done well to reduce Australia's current overseas account to 4% of the GDP, down from 7% in 1981 . . . Can anybody remember who was Treasurer in 1981? The article continues: . . . even though export prices were higher than now. The improvement came because more than the whole 2 1/2% rise in last fiscal year's GDP came in net exports, with the volume of exports up by only 7% and the volume of imports down by 6%. Another section of the article states: The Labor Government's mechanism for deflating demand has been to reduce the budget deficit to nil on American definitions, after having inherited an above-American deficit of 4 1/2% of GDP in 1983-84. In British terms, Australia's PSBR-that is, public sector borrowing requirement-has been cut from 8% of GDP at Labor's accession to 2%. That is the assessment of the Government's budgetary policy by the Economist magazine. In response to the last part of Senator Cook's question, I point out that the article gives no support whatsoever to the perpetual, whining criticism of the Opposition. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. The Minister will be aware that the Botsman report-the Review of the Arts Education and Training-is one of the most significant reports prepared for any government in relation to the future of the arts in Australia. Given this fact and the undoubted familiarity which any competent Arts Minister would have with the Botsman report, I ask the Minister: What decisions have been made by the Government in relation to its recommendation on dance education, and what are the reasons for any such decisions? Senator RICHARDSON —We have had, in recent times within the Department, an extra- ordinary number of reports, and many of them are under consideration. In view of that, it has not been possible for me to get to the bottom of each and every one. I have to concede that point. In respect of dance education, last week I visited the Australian Ballet School and talked to its directors about what could be done for them. I am returning in a few weeks to finalise what we might be able to do. I understand that we are now considering a number of recommendations in respect of the Australian Ballet School. When I have finalised them I shall let the Senate know about them. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Why is the Minister attempting to mislead the Senate with his answer by saying that the Botsman report is under consideration when in fact it has already been considered by the joint liaison committee which was established with representatives appointed by the Minister from the Australia Council, for which he is responsible, and when the decision on the recommendations of the Botsman committee in relation to dance education has already been made and announced? Will he now, first, explain to the Senate the reasons for that decision as already announced; and, secondly, does he propose to be in Estimates Committee F all day today or will he wimp out on that as well? Senator RICHARDSON —I was more than careful not to say that. I did not say it, so I have no reason to answer the question. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. When the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was amended in 1983, did sections 16 (1) and (2) correspond to sections 2 (1) and (2) in the Senate Elections (Queensland) Act 1982, an Act which resulted from a private senator's Bill I introduced in the Senate in 1981? Further, when the various sections of the Commonwealth Electoral Act were renumbered and section 16 became section 39, did an error occur in section 39 (2) in that section 7 of the Constitution was wrongly referred to as section 6? Does this error make section 39 (2) inoperative, or was it a typographical error which occurred after the Act was amended? If section 39 (2) is now inoperative, will an amendment be made to rectify this error? If the error was typographical, is section 39 (2) still fully operative, and will the error be corrected when the Act is next reprinted? Senator TATE —I have a short note on the matters raised by Senator Colston. I am unable to say whether the Commonwealth Electoral Act amendments referred to did result from a private senator's Bill that he introduced into the Senate in 1981, but I believe that is the case. I would not be surprised if it were the case because Senator Colston has acted as a catalyst and, indeed, his private member's Bills have been a model for legislative initiatives in this area. However, in regard to the questions he asked, I am advised that an error was not made in the amending Act but that an error appeared in the 1984 reprint. The error occurred, I am told, in the publications section of the Australian Government Publishing Service. I am advised that this does not affect the Act, so the Act remains fully operative as originally amended. The error will be corrected in the next reprint. The timing of that will depend on the printing program. I believe that the Electoral Act is not high on the list, but the correction will be undertaken as soon as possible. Senator McLEAN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. When does the Minister expect to receive Mr Hogg's report on the adequacies or otherwise of the final report of the Evatt Royal Commission on the Use and Effect of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam? When the Minister receives Mr Hogg's report, to whom will it be made available and when? Senator REYNOLDS —I have an answer to the honourable senator's question. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Humphreys, has received a report from Mr Bob Hogg. Mr Hogg's task as the consultant was to help the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in his preparation of proposals to go forward in a submission to Cabinet, taking into account work done by Government departments and submissions made by veterans' affairs associations. The question of the release of Mr Hogg's report will be taken up in the context of Cabinet's consideration of the Minister's submission. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Local Government. The Minister will be aware of the increasing participation by local government in the area of community services, extra to roads, rates and rubbish. Local government is not only helping to deliver such services but is more and more addressing the actual provision of community services. Can the Minister say what role the Federal Government is playing in this area, whether special funds are being allocated from the Federal level to this work or whether the Federal role is confined to the planning and rationalisation of resources? Senator REYNOLDS —It is indeed true that local government has a very important role to play in the delivery of community services, and this role was recognised by the Prime Minister in his policy speech in July, when he gave a commitment for this Government to consider devolution of responsibilities undertaken at the Federal level back to local government authorities. It was his recognition of local government's crucial role in the delivery of community services that prompted that particular announcement. Over the next few months I expect to be talking in much more detail about those devolution proposals. Last Friday, I addressed the Community Services Association of Victoria and heard from it about a number of very exciting proposals that have been undertaken in that State, involving community service provision at the local government level. In my State and former city council of Townsville we were deeply involved in the provision of community services. The Commonwealth recognises the importance of local government's role in the planning and provision of services at the local government level. The Commonwealth continues to encourage and assist local government effectively to play its part in an efficient public sector capable of meeting community needs. For example, funds to local government for children's services are expected to grow by 27 per cent this year to $88m. Funding to local government under the home and community care program will be increased by 40 per cent in 1987-88, which is very significant in real terms. The home and community care program is one in which local government is particularly involved. In Victoria, local government has pioneered a great deal of work in the provision of Meals on Wheels services. The Commonwealth will be developing a response to the Local Government Ministers conference task force report on community development, human services and local government. It recommended a more planned approach to the development of human services and the adoption of policies to guide the relationships between State and Federal agencies and local government. The Commonwealth has sponsored two conferences. Mr President, I am rather concerned, and I am sure that listeners will be, that the Opposition has so little interest in the development of community services at the local government level that Opposition members seem to prefer talk during the detailing of this very important information that I have for them. The Commonwealth has sponsored two conferences which, for the first time, brought local government community services practitioners together on a national basis. These have been critical in assisting local government to develop its role in community services and its relationships with other levels of government. The local government development program will continue to be used to strengthen the capacity of local government to plan, co-ordinate and deliver community services consistent with the national objectives. Last year, community services projects were one of the priority areas for funding, with 29 projects receiving some $600,000. In 1987-88 community services projects will continue to receive top priority. Senator HAMER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Further to Senator Peter Baume's earlier question about Fiji and the Minister's rather confused answer, I ask the Minister: Why are the Government's attitudes to Fiji and New Caledonia diametrically opposed? Is it not true that in New Caledonia the Hawke Government is supporting the indigenous minority and seeking to override the clearly expressed democratic wishes of the majority? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no parallel, again, between those two situations. The Government's position on New Caledonia is well known. It has been enunciated on numerous occasions by Mr Hayden and, to a lesser extent, by me in this place. In the first instance, it involves a desire that all the people of New Caledonia participate in an effective exercise in self-determination conducted in accordance with United Nations principles, not on the basis on which the present referendum was conducted, which referendum as a result was, understand- ably enough, boycotted by a very significant proportion of the New Caledonian people because no serious alternatives were put to the people involving, for example, the intermediate status of independence in association with France, an option which might well have satisfied a number of people's aspirations. There was no extended process of education about the various options and alternatives leading up to that referendum and the whole affair took place in the context of a most unhappy atmosphere as a result of the actions of the authorities concerned. We have indicated support in the past for the Fabius-Pisani plan, as it had been devised and developed by the French authorities earlier, and we continue to espouse a position, not one that is an argument for dominance by the now ethnic minority in that country but one that fully recognises the claims of those people to a serious, respected and dignified voice in the shaping of the future of their own country, not something that has been able to take place in the way in which that territory has been administered to date. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the recent rise in new dwelling approvals in the housing market and to the significant upward movement in the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd job advertisement series in August. Are these, in addition to the recent unemployment figures, further indications that the Government's economic strategy for the financial year 1987-88 is on track? Senator WALSH —The September Treasury bulletin confirms what Senator Maguire has said. It reports that the ANZ bank job advertisement series rose by 3.1 per cent in August, to be some 5 per cent higher than it was a year ago, and that the number of building approvals for new dwellings increased by 5.2 per cent in July and by 6.3 per cent for the three months to July. Statistics such as those do not please the Opposition because, apart from contradicting its own forecasts, the Opposition realises that they also further erode whatever limited chance it might have of getting into government one day. It is because of that that when something initiated overseas inevitably spills on to Australia, such as the recent decline in the stock market, it is greeted by the Opposition with ill-concealed delight and the probably forlorn hope that it will do some damage to the real economy as distinct from the casino activity which has been featured in stock markets over the last eight or nine months in particular. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question, which is to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health, refers to the serious effects which the Federal Government's Medicare arrangements are having on staffing levels in Queensland hospitals. Is it a fact that, under the Medicare agreement, Queensland receives $82.86 per capita whilst the average of the other States of Australia is $198.80? Is it a fact that the South Australian Government receives $257.46, which is more than three times the amount per capita than is received in Queensland? Is the Minister aware that, if the identified health grants are added to that, the total amount received by New South Wales from the Commonwealth is $1,039m whilst the Queensland figure is a mere $205m? Does the Minister not agree that these are serious discrepancies and is she in a position to explain why they have occurred? Senator RYAN —I am not in a position to confirm the figures which Senator Bjelke- Petersen cited in her question. Therefore, I cannot agree that there is an anomaly or a discrepancy. I very much doubt that there would be. I recall that the matter of negotiating Medicare agreements with the States was a very long and drawn out one and involved a long period of difficulty in Queensland, after which agreement was reached. So I very much doubt that there is any anomaly. Because I am not in a position to comment on the specific figures quoted in Senator Bjelke-Petersen's question, I will refer the matter to Dr Blewett and get a proper response. Senator DEVEREUX —I draw the attention of the Minister for Transport and Communications to Press reports about the need for installation of radar and for increased staffing levels to deal with the growth in air traffic at Cairns. I ask: What actions are being taken by the Government to improve air traffic control at Cairns? Senator GARETH EVANS —We are well aware of the greater than forecast growth in air traffic movements in north Queensland, especially affecting Cairns Airport. A central and regional office task force was established some seven months ago and identified many areas to assist air traffic control at Cairns in carrying out its functions. The task force made approximately 30 recommendations which are presently being actioned. The Government announced in June this year that radar will be installed in Cairns as part of a program to enhance radar coverage along the Queensland coast. Tenders for this major program will be let during 1988 and installation at Cairns is anticipated to be completed by the end of 1990. Due to the procurement lead times for equipment of this complexity, it is impossible to have the facility operational any earlier than that. Close examination is being given to ensure that the current staff and procedures are adequate to meet the increasing air traffic demands at Cairns. New staffing proposals are currently under consideration within the Department. A number of further talks are proceeding on these issues. I simply make the point that there is no justification for the precipitate action and some of the more extravagant claims that have been made by some of the industrial interests concerned. The situation is completely manageable. Action has been taken to deal with it and full radar coverage is on its way. Senator PANIZZA —I address my question to the Minister for Transport and Communications. What is the Government's attitude to Mr Halfpenny's suggestion that there should be a Senate inquiry into dealings between the Government and Sir Peter Abeles, including any involvement in the coastwatch contract fiasco? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government's attitude is one of comprehensive dismissal. It is a piece of totally unjustified grandstanding that bears no conceivable relationship to any public interest. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the fall in unemployment, as measured by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in September, to below 8 per cent. Does the Minister have any information as to the last occasion on which the Opposition asked a question in this place concerning the general level of unemployment in Australia? Were the recent unemployment fi-gures consistent with the Government's policies as laid down in the Budget? Senator WALSH —I have been asked whether I can remember when the Opposition last asked a question about the general level of unemployment. The answer is that I cannot remember, but I am pretty confident that it was a very long time ago. Indeed, I doubt whether the Opposition has asked any question about unemployment this year, but I suppose that that can be checked out. Until Senator Button's absence this week I had not had any responsibility for the Department of Industrial Relations since the last election. I guess that, from the Opposition's spectacular disinterest in unemployment levels, one could conclude-- Senator Michael Baume —What about yesterday's question on Priority One? Why do you try to mislead the Senate? Senator WALSH —Was that a former stockbroker who said that? It could reflect the Opposition's disappointment that the employment figures have been very good and have more than met the expectations predicted in the last Budget and are on track to meeting the expectations in this Budget. Senator Chaney —I seek your guidance, Mr President. I have already advised Senator Walsh that, after Question Time, I propose to raise the total failure of the Department of Industrial Relations to answer questions put in this place. On 23 September, I put a question which is still not answered. On 8 October, I put a question which is still not answered. Senator WALSH —On a point of order, Mr President: Senator Chaney is trying to abuse Question Time by turning it into a debate. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney has the call and I am waiting to hear his point of order. Senator Chaney —I am seeking your guidance, Mr President. Is it open to the Minister to complain about a failure of the Opposition to ask questions in an area where the Government has refused to answer? The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point or order. I have no power as to how the Minister will answer the question. Senator WALSH —Before that completely spurious attempt to turn Question Time into a debate about whatever Senator Chaney feels like debating, I had finished my answer. Senator SHEIL —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that the Government intends scaling down the defence contract offices in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth in the near future? If so, how can this disruption to local contracting be justified when defence contracting restricted to Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra is more likely to increase costs than reduce them? Defence contracts in Brisbane were worth $30m last year and any scaling down would easily halve that amount. Senator ROBERT RAY —The Minister for Defence has been examining a large number of measures to improve efficiencies in the defence portfolio. These measures include a major review of the defence logistics organisation and the contracts organisation. In the contracts area, the Government is looking to make savings of the order of $8m in the first year of operation. Action has been taken to change the existing contracting arrangements in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, as Senator Sheil's question indicates. Discussions are taking place with relevant unions, State governments and industry associations about the new arrangements. It is intended to maintain small contract administration offices in those areas. I am assured by the Minister for Defence that the new arrangements will lead to greater efficiency in the contracting area. It is not necessarily a fact that, because the number of contract offices is reduced, the number of contracts in those States will in any way be reduced. But I might just add that it is impossible, if a government is trying to slash $2 billion-odd off government expenditure, that there not be reductions in some areas. It is not much good for the Opposition to say that we are reducing expenditure in this or that area when its basic philosophical position is to double the amount of expenditure cuts, always unspecified, when it comes to Budget time. We have to make some savings in the defence area so that we can concentrate defence expenditure on those areas of priority that I am sure we have a bipartisan approach to. Senator COULTER —Is the Minister for the Environment and the Arts aware of the phenomenon of electromagnetic pulse? Is he aware that a single nuclear explosion at a height above about 200 kilometres over the central United States of America would destroy all communications systems based on transistors; that is, all radio, television, telephone, electric power systems, electric car ignitions and, in short, essentially all communication? Is the Minister therefore persuaded that, fearing the inability to retaliate through loss of the ability to communicate with rocket launchers, both the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would be inclined to launch all available nuclear weapons once nuclear hostilities began? Finally, does the Minister therefore accept that any nuclear war is likely to escalate rapidly to total nuclear war? Senator RICHARDSON —I am not quite certain of the relationship between the question and the Department of the Environment and the Arts. Nonetheless, one would imagine that a nuclear holocaust would have an effect on the environment, and in that respect, I suppose, some tender thread links the question and the person answering. Having said that, I must say that I am not an expert on pulse. We have a number of departments that could cover that point a little better than I. I could name three Australian Ministers as well as Messrs Reagan and Gorbachev who should all be consulted in getting an appropriate answer. My view is in accordance with the Government's view, as expressed many times in this chamber in the last couple of days. I do not think that I need to expand on it. Senator VANSTONE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice. I again raise with the Minister Senator Crowley's serious allegations against a judge of the Family Court of Australia, suggesting that the judge should be dismissed because of a particular judgment. Yesterday, the Minister was unable to respond to my question about the Government's attitude to this serious matter which goes to the very heart of the administration of justice in this country. Has the Minister yet taken any action; and can he now inform the Senate of the Government's attitude? Senator TATE —I did not understand, when Senator Crowley asked me her question on 20 October, that she was calling for the dismissal of the judge. In fact, I recall her asking whether the judgment provided grounds for dismissal, which is a slightly different matter. It was a more objective question. I have read the judgment delivered by the judge on 6 August 1987, as I undertook yesterday in the Senate to do. I took the opportunity last night to do so. Having read the judgment, one can see the sort of reasoning and the evidence before the judge which led to the sorts of conditions she attached to the foreshadowed award of custody to the mother. To that extent, whilst I am still of the view that the conditions deserve the description `extraordinary', there is a basis in the judgment for the conditions that were attached. But certainly it is the case that the decision is one that naturally has led to public concern. At the time I gave the answer in the Senate, no appeal process was under way. I understand that an appeal is to be lodged next week. That is the best way for any eccentricity that might be thought to be in the judgment to be sorted out-in the appeal process. I further understand that Justice Evatt, the Chief Judge of the Family Court-this has been reported to me; I have not heard the radio broadcast-fortuitously was being interviewed on the radio this morning on other matters. She indicated that the fact that an appeal process was to be got under way very shortly should lead to there being no further discussion on the topic. Certainly, it is not my intention to exacerbate the situation. As I said, I have read the judgment and I understand better the context which led to the conditions being attached to the decision on custody. May I also say that I have not had an opportunity to read any transcript or judgment that might have been put down in the return of the matter before the judge. I recall that that was after a two-month adjournment. Apparently the matter was back in court in early October. I have not had an opportunity to read any of those proceedings. Senator VANSTONE —I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister answer the question that was put to him? What is the Government's attitude with respect to Senator Crowley's suggestion or inference that the judge ought to be removed as a consequence of this judgment? What steps has the Minister taken to clear that dark cloud over the judge's competence? Senator TATE —I think I have indicated that I did not understand Senator Crowley to be asking for the dismissal of the judge. She was asking whether the judgment, in an objective sense, might provide grounds for removal. I and the Government have not taken any steps to deal with the judge; I think it would be quite improper to do so. The matter is best dealt with in the appeal process and that is the process which is now under way. Senator Vanstone —We are talking about the judge's dismissal, not about the judgment. Senator TATE —I do not believe that a judgment can provide a ground for dismissal; it is as simple as that. It ought to be dealt with by the appeal process which is under way. Senator BOLKUS —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, relates particularly to the wine industry. I ask the Minister: Can he indicate whether the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation has taken any initiatives recently to promote Australian wine internationally? Can he also indicate what the priority of such a campaign has been and the effects thereof? Senator WALSH —I do not have any specific information on the promotional activities of the Wine and Brandy Corporation, although I assume that that Corporation is promoting Australian wine sales on a continuing basis overseas. However, I am very well aware of the export performance of the wine industry over the last 12 months. That has been one of the spectacular successes, in proportional terms, of Australian exports. I have with me the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) bulletin dated 11 September 1987. I am not sure whether there is a more recent bulletin but this one reports on the sales of Australian wine and brandy for the month of July 1987. It states that the total volume of exports of Australian wine for the year ended June 1987 was over 21 million litres, more than a 95 per cent increase in the volume of Australian wine exports for the year ended June. Admittedly, that was from a reasonably low base, but to see exports almost double in 12 months is a matter of great satisfaction to the Government and, I would have thought, to everybody associated with the wine industry. While I am on the subject of that ABS bulletin of 11 September, let me say that it also draws attention to some major quirks in the recorded statistics in recent times. It states: . . . previously recorded total wine sales- this is, total sales, not just exports- for the year ended June 1987 have now been revised upwards to 330.0 million litres which now represents a 1.5 per cent increase over the year ended June 1986. More significantly, the bulletin reports that the total wine sales for July 1987 were 33.2 million litres, an increase of more than 38 per cent from the June figure and an increase of more than 8 per cent on the figure for July 1986. It is rather extraordinary that the recorded sales for July this year were 38 per cent higher than they were for June and less remarkable, I suppose, they were 8.2 per cent higher than they were for July 1986. This statistic has an acknowledged history of being somewhat unreliable and is based on the reported sales from major wineries which raises the question whether the major wineries have been as diligent in reporting their sales as they ought to have been. If one has a more suspicious mind, it raises the question whether there was deliberate under-reporting for the month of June. If it happened they probably acted in collusion with the Opposition in trying to mount a political campaign regarding the sales tax on the industry. Returning to the question of profit, it is a matter of great satisfaction to Government, and it ought to be a matter of great satisfaction to the wine industry, that the export performance of the last 12 months has been so spectacularly successful. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I ask you whether you would inform the Senate of the grounds you accepted, in conjunction with Madam Speaker, to refuse the funding of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 1987 General Assembly of the United Nations in New York. Furthermore, have you taken any tangible measures to re-establish this funding? The PRESIDENT —There is quite a large file on this matter. I believe that the Speaker and I wrote to the Prime Minister asking that the funding for that visit be reinstated. I will check the file to see what answer we received and I will report it to the Senate. Senator BLACK —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. As today is the final day for the receipt of submissions on the boundaries of north Queensland's wet tropical rainforests, can the Minister advise the Senate of the number and nature of submissions received and their implications for the Government's plans for this region? Senator RICHARDSON —The number of submissions coming in is rising rapidly by the hour. I think last Friday it was about 1,500 and I am told that it is now almost 2,000 and it is still rising. I am very pleased to note that there is a submission from the Queensland Government. The Premier has put in a submission so there is the beginning of a faint hope of co-operation. Of course, the nature of the submissions varies widely from one-line rude suggestions to me to more in-depth submissions which ask for changes to the boundaries and argue the case for them. Last night I had a meeting with the Concerned Ladies Action Group (CLAG) from Ravenshoe; in fact, one of its members was a lady whose daughter had played the Last Post for me a couple of weeks ago. So impressed was I with CLAG that we resumed our discussions at breakfast this morning. That group has put in a submission encased in 1945 prime rainforest timber. Within that submission I think 100 individuals from Ravenshoe have written in with varying sorts of submissions. As far as the implications for the future are concerned, I hope that we will be in a position to finalise the boundary by the end of November. To that end a number of people are currently assessing those submissions. We have tried, as far as it is possible, to assess the submissions as they have been coming in. But given the huge rush in the last week, it will take some time. I am hopeful that by the end of November we will be in a position to announce a final boundary. Senator KNOWLES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs concerned about the increasing level of delays in the processing of immigration applications? Can she confirm the fact that a person lodging a business migration application in Berne, Switzerland can expect an average processing time of 14 months before a visa is issued? Given the fact that the Government claims that it wants a sharper economic focus in its immigration program, does the Minister not find it appalling that such valuable immigrants to Australia have to wait such an inordinately long time for their visas to be issued? Senator REYNOLDS —I am not aware of the case that Senator Knowles has raised but I will take the question on notice and ask the Minister to provide a response. Senator CROWLEY —Mr President, my question also is to you. I refer to a recent newspaper report describing the `sick building syndrome'-consequent on bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms in air-conditioning and cooling systems. Can you say, Mr President, how often the Parliament House air-conditioning and cooling systems are examined and cleaned-if they are-particularly in the light of the number of sick people in Parliament House at the moment? The PRESIDENT —I am not able at this time to give Senator Crowley that information. If she and Senator MacGibbon had raised the questions with me previously I would have been able to give much more comprehensive answers. Senator MESSNER —Has the attention of the Minister for Transport and Communications been drawn to a report in today's Australian newspaper concerning the Government's ill-starred proposal to introduce an auctioning system for the issuing of new radio licences? Does the Minister maintain this high degree of expectation of getting Cabinet and Caucus approval of the auctioning proposal in light of the hostile reception it received from the transport and communications Caucus sub-committee at yesterday's meeting and also in the light of the almost unanimous opposition to the proposal from the radio broadcasting industry? Does the Minister agree that the auctioning proposal in its current form could unduly increase the concentration of radio ownership and effectively prevent small community-based groups from obtaining licences? If so, is the Minister considering any proposal to provide some degree of protection to local or community-based radio interest groups in obtaining FM licences? Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator should know by now never to believe everything he reads in the newspapers. As to the rest of his question, all will be revealed in due course. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.22) —It is a little ironic that in Question Time Senator Walsh raised the failure of the Opposition to ask questions of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), given the record of questioning in this place and the failure of the Minister for Industrial Relations to respond. I think it was in May of this year that Mr Willis suggested that the bans provisions in the industrial relations legislation are moribund. That word seems to have become part of the industrial relations dictionary. There is an appearance of the Minister being rather moribund himself with respect to responding to issues which are raised with him. I ask the Government to look at the record of this Minister and to seek some better performance. It would appear that Senator Button's office has unsuccessfully tried to pursue answers. I wish to direct the attention of the Senate to the nature of the questions the Minister has failed to answer. On 23 September, about a month ago, I raised with the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations the demand by the Building Workers Industrial Union for the flow on to the Parliament House construction site of the $20 a week severance pay agreement reached with employers. Just prior to my asking that question Mr Justice Ludeke condemned the severance pay deals which had been done and said that they could not be justified under the wage fixing principles and that any further attempt to extend the payment was unacceptable. I asked on that date what steps the Government would take to ensure that the $20 severance payment would not be paid on the new Parliament House site unless it was a determination of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Not surprisingly, the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations in this place was not able to answer that question. Senator Button said that he would refer the question to the Minister and obtain an answer. Since that time I have made regular requests to Senator Button's office for an answer. As that has produced nothing, I have made regular requests of Mr Willis's office and again there has been no response. Yet this is a matter in which the Minister has been directly involved in correspondence and in other activities and it must be a comparatively simple matter for the Government's attitude to be disclosed to this place and for the Minister to advise us whether the Government will take any action on this matter. The second issue that I raised was the industrial dispute on the North West Shelf. That question was raised on 8 October at the time when a lengthy industrial dispute had been settled apparently by an agreement being entered into involving agreement to pay additional wages apparently well outside the national wage principles of the Government and of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In this matter again there was direct Commonwealth Government involvement with the State Commissioner being given authority to act as a Federal commissioner also. Senator Button undertook on 8 October to get an update on what had happened. At that stage he had a note from the Minister dated 6 October. Again, it has been impossible to get an answer from the Minister's office. There are two possibilities in this matter. The first is that the Minister's office and his Department are simply incapable of getting an answer to a question where there is a clear Commonwealth involvement and a clear ability to provide an answer. It may be that there is just massive inefficiency within the Minister's Department which precludes these relatively straightforward requests from being answered. The other possibility, of course, is that in both cases the Government is simply embarrassed by the fact that the agreements entered into appear to be outside the wages guidelines which have the support of the Government and which are, of course, a matter of great contention at the moment, given that the national wage case has been postponed and there are very significant issues to be determined about what wages policies should be followed given the difficult and uncertain economic conditions we face. I raise the matter at this stage because the failure of the Minister to respond is making it more difficult for the Opposition, and indeed for the community, to make appropriate judgments on these issues. I do not regard it as vaguely acceptable that we should have to wait for more than four weeks for an answer to a straightforward question on a matter which is within the Government's knowledge and apparent competence and I express my concern. I think it is clear that that concern is not shared by Government Ministers. Senator Walsh, to whom I gave notice of this matter, has left the chamber and is obviously treating it as one which he can ignore. The other Ministers who are here are obviously not interested in it. I simply wish to make public my dissatisfaction and the dissatisfaction of the Opposition at this attitude to Question Time. It is totally inappropriate that Ministers should adopt this cavalier attitude. I seek a response from the Government as to what attitude it has to the reasonably speedy answering of questions in this place. Since Senator Richardson is unable to answer questions even on his own portfolio I doubt that he will be able to give me much assistance on this matter. Given the contempt with which this matter has been treated, Mr President, I draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed) Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.29) —I raise a matter which is of importance in my electorate, in particular the Belconnen area. It arises from a number of incidents of vandalism in the area of the Kippax shopping centre recently. It is not just in the shopping centre area; it is more widespread than that. The question really is: What police protection is there for the community in the area? It is certainly the impression of most people in that area that there are fewer police around than there have been in the past. I think it might be useful if the relevant Minister obtained the following information: how many police have been on duty in each shift in the area of the Belconnen police station, say, in the last three weeks; and how many cars have been used in each shift? When I say `on duty', I am not talking about the officers in the police station; I am talking about the number of police out in the area on patrol who are able to attend calls that are made by members of the public. The fact is that a considerable amount of damage is being done and it is necessary that there be a greater degree of police protection to see that this is stopped. In the end the community pays for any damage that is done. As the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) would know, insurance claims add to the cost of this expensive item. Also, distress is caused to the people. But the question that needs to be answered is the extent to which police from the Belconnen police station are available to attend calls in the community in respect of incidents. The police need to be able to attend quickly enough to do something about those incidents and to apprehend the people who are causing the problems. As I said, many people in the Belconnen area have gained the impression that far fewer police are now on duty and out and about on patrol. I ask the Minister to bring the facts to the Senate so that we can assess whether the area is being adequately policed and looked after, whether there are fewer police in the area than there have been in the past and whether the present situation is reasonable. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(11.32) —I rise to speak on a matter which is of some personal concern to me. The Sydney International Piano Competition of Australia is an important competition which is conducted every four years throughout Australia. This competition gives young pianists the opportunity to compete with each other in Australia for the benefit of young Australian audiences in particular, as well as a more general audience. The competition, which began in 1978, has already achieved a huge status internationally. It is now regarded among the top five competitions of the world, including the Tchaikovsky competition, the Leeds and other well-known competitions. I am greatly concerned about the ideological stance which the Music Board of the Australia Council seems to take in this endeavour. It is important to note that the Sydney International Piano Competition of Australia will take place in the bicentennial year of 1988, one year earlier than would be normal so that it can fit in with the importance of this occasion. As I said, the Music Board has an ideological stance that somehow competitions are bad for artists. Generally, the Government seems to be quite pleased to see grants made available for sporting competitions and other fields of endeavour. It seems to me that its extraordinary attitude is disadvantaging young musicians in this country who are anxious to participate. It is important to note that we conduct overseas auditions to ensure that the best Australian artists compete. Places are always made available for Australian competitors to compete with the world's best. I raise this matter because I feel that the Music Board's attitude is really quite unacceptable. I do not know whether it is possible for competitors, because of their virtuosity in terms of fingering exercises on the piano keyboard, to get a grant under a sporting allocation. But it seems to me to be a wrong allocation of resources if competitions per se are not eligible simply because artists are made to compete against each other. As I said, this attitude has been evident over the life of the competition. We would be hopeful that, with the Bicentennial coming up, perhaps the Music Board might relent on this occasion. In a previous competition we obtained a grant which was used to commission three Australian works. Those works formed a compulsory part of the repertoire which the competitors played. This not only gave composers an opportunity to write fresh works but also, more importantly, gave the opportunity for those works to be performed before audiences who have a genuine interest and care for the piano. As I said, I raise this matter this morning because I think it is important. We have reached a standard of excellence in Australia through the efforts of private enterprise and private individuals who are involved with the competition. Indeed, we have enjoyed good State support in New South Wales. I think it is a matter of national importance that the national form of government should give recognition through the Music Board of the Australia Council. The organisers of the competition should not be forced, as they have been on other occasions, to find other means of funding. I think this is a legitimate cause to have raised during this adjournment debate. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(11.35) —I will raise with the relevant Minister the concerns of Senator Chaney and Senator Reid. I understand that there is some feeling on one of the issues, and I will endeavour to sort that out. In regard to the matter raised by Senator Bishop, I think it is the case that we are talking about the Performing Arts Board, given that the Music Board has gone into the Performing Arts Board as a result of the reorganisation of the Australia Council. In fact, I have received a number of representations on that question from some, as they say, prominent Australians. Allowing for the fact that the Australia Council makes its own decisions and that we have arm's-length funding, I am, nonetheless, writing to the Australia Council to see what can be done to clarify the position on competitions. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee D will meet in committee rooms 1 and 2, Estimates Committee E will meet in the Senate chamber and Estimates Committee F will meet in committee room 6. Prior to the sittings of the committees, the bells will be rung for three minutes. Senate adjourned at 11.37 a.m.